Which measures of perceived vulnerability predict protective intentions—and when?

• Published in: Journal of behavioral medicine Vol. 46; no. 6; pp. 912 - 929
• Main Authors: Stuart, Jillian O’Rourke, Windschitl, Paul D., Bossard, Elaine, Bruchmann, Kathryn, Smith, Andrew R., Rose, Jason P., Suls, Jerry
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.12.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Behavior; Boundary conditions; Disease prevention; Family Medicine; General Practice; Generalizability; Health problems; Health Psychology; Immunization; Infections; Medical screening; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Perceptions; Predictions; Protective factors; Respiratory diseases; Risk factors; Vaccination; Vulnerability; Prevention; Comparative risk; Risk perceptions; Vaccination intentions; Health decision making; Perceived vulnerability
• ISSN: 0160-7715; 1573-3521
• DOI: 10.1007/s10865-023-00439-1

Assessing perceived vulnerability to a health threat is essential to understanding how people conceptualize their risk, and to predicting how likely they are to engage in protective behaviors. However, there is limited consensus about which of many measures of perceived vulnerability predict behavior best. We tested whether the ability of different measures to predict protective intentions varies as a function of the type of information people learn about their risk. Online participants ( N  = 909) read information about a novel respiratory disease before answering measures of perceived vulnerability and vaccination intentions. Type-of-risk information was varied across three between-participant groups. Participants learned either: (1) only information about their comparative standing on the primary risk factors ( comparative-only ), (2) their comparative standing as well as the base-rate of the disease in the population (+  base-rate ), or (3) their comparative standing as well as more specific estimates of their absolute risk (+  absolute-chart ). Experiential and affective measures of perceived vulnerability predicted protective intentions well regardless of how participants learned about their risk, while the predictive ability of deliberative numeric and comparative measures varied based on the type of risk information provided. These results broaden the generalizability of key prior findings (i.e., some prior findings about which measures predict best may apply no matter how people learn about their risk), but the results also reveal boundary conditions and critical points of distinction for determining how to best assess perceived vulnerability.