Risico & Gezondheidscommunicatie
Lecture 1:
Risk: the likelihood that a specific event occurs.
- Risk = Change that something happens x The severity thereof
- It’s subjective, because people find different things risky.
Health: 2 definitions:
- As a state: It is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
- As a dynamic process: The capacity of people to adapt to, respond to, or control life’s
challenges and changes.”
- Subjective health: health on the individual level, determined by the individual,
perceived health.
- Objective health: health at the organic level, determined by an expert.
- Social health: health on the social level, determined by the social environment,
society. (eg. you’re perceived less healthy by society when you’re slightly overweight,
whereas your doctor says you’re perfectly healthy)
Primary prevention: preventing (the development of) illness (eg. washing your hands, getting
a vaccine).
Secondary prevention: early detection of a disease, issue, problem (eg. going to the dentist
to see if you have rotten teeth).
Tertiary prevention: limiting the severity of consequences of the disease, issue, problem (eg.
as an obese person → enrolling in a treatment program).
Unrealistic optimism: predicting that a personal future outcome will be more favorable than
that suggested by a relevant, objective standard. → Persuasive communication.
- Smoking: “My grandpa is 96 and smoking”, “You can also get in a car accident, you
don’t hear me saying you shouldn’t drive anymore, right?”
Lecture 2 inhalen
Lecture 3:
Intentions: the commitment to do something. → I intend to do X.
- X = behaviour (exercise) or goal
- Creates commitment to the behaviour/goal
Are intentions good predictors of behaviour?
- Sheeran (2012): meta-analysis of meta-analyses
● Intentions explain 28% of variance in behaviour.
● Big effect (but correlational)
- Webb & Sheeran (2006): meta-analysis experimental studies
● Does change in intentions predict change in behaviour?
● Medium-large change in intentions → small-medium change in behaviour.
- Sheeran (2002): health behaviour
, ● ~50% of the people with a positive intention to perform healthy behaviour do
not perform this healthy behaviour.
● Intention-behaviour gap.
Explanations for the intention-behaviour gap
- Intention viability: intentions can only be realised when you have control over the
behaviour.
● Abilities, resources, opportunities
- Intention activation: environment/context can also activate different goals (intentions)
● Temptations: short vs. long-term goals.
● People ‘forget’ or re-prioritise their goals.
- Intention elaboration: intentions can only be realised when you think through all
actions needed to reach your goals.
Strong effects of simple plans (Gollwitzer, 1999)
- How can we reduce the gap between intentions & behaviour?
- Use implementation intentions (imps)!
● Motivational models stop at intention formation.
● Imps focus on the volitional phase of planning and action to reach goals.
● Imps are also called if-then plans.
Implementation intentions: when situation Y happens, I do Z.
- Y = situational cue relevant for the goal.
- Z = instrumental goal-directed response.
- When, where and how you will do something (Normal intentions is only ‘what you
want to do’)
- Creating association between metal representation situation and goal-directed
response (if-then plans).
Example:
- I intend to drink less alcohol (normal intention)
- If the waiter asks what I would like to drink, I’ll order water (if-then).
Why do imps work?
- Thinking about a good opportunity to act beforehand, makes this situation cognitively
more accessible
● Because it is more accessible you will recognize the good opportunity to act
faster!
● And this increases the likelihood you will use this opportunity to act!
- Thinking about how to respond beforehand, makes it more likely you automatize this
reaction
● If I encounter situation Y, I will do Z!
- “Passing control of one’s behaviour on to the environment”
● When I get home from work, I go for a run. I get home from work, so I go
running
● This is different from deciding at that particular moment...more difficult
because of temptations (watching Netflix
● Imps create strong cue-response link (getting home – running)
, Proof that imps work:
- Forming imps (or if-then plans) facilitate
● Recognising a good opportunity to act.
● If-component plan
● Activates mental representation relevant situational cues, so cognitively more
accessible (cue accessibility)
● Person is perceptually ready.
- Automatic execution of goal-directed response.
● Then-component plan.
● Creates strong cue-response link, automatises reaction.
Webb & Sheeran (2007):
- Aim: to test if cue accessibility and the strong cue-response link together mediate the
effect of imps on goal achievement.
- Participants see a word on their screen everytime and then they have to decide to
press word/non-word or do nothing.
- Task: identify if the puzzle contains words
or non-word learned prior to doing this
task.
● Words: mosaic, biscuit, circus,
netball
● Non-words: avenda, grarpes,
weemed, frounge
- Imps condition: to respond quickly to
learned word
- Control condition: familiarise yourself with
the word
- Formation imps
● Imps condition: if I see avenda, then I will press the key quickly.
● Control condition: try to respond quickly to avenda by familiarising yourself
with the word.