Abstract
The goal of the current research was to test whether direct versus indirect measures of comparative optimism yield different results as a function of health risk severity and prevalence. A random-digit sample of community residents (N = 259) responded to interview questions about perceived vulnerability using both direct (i.e. self-to-peer risk) and indirect comparison measures (i.e. separate questions about self and peer risk). Responses to direct comparison measures were more affected by prevalence, whereas indirect comparison measures were more affected by severity. These results may offer guidance to researchers and practitioners about when it may be more appropriate to use direct versus indirect measures of comparative health risk.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
