Lifestyle and chronic illness: Variables affecting risk perception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite efforts to inform the public of prominent health hazards, a substantial proportion of the Canadian population still engages in unhealthy behaviours. Theories of health behaviour propose that perceived vulnerability to negative health outcomes influences the likelihood of engaging in healthy behaviours. However, research has demonstrated that people can be optimistic when making risk predictions for negative health outcomes, and perceive that bad things are less likely to happen to them. This phenomenon has been called unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980), and has been demonstrated for a wide variety of events with respect to comparative risk judgments. A major goal of the present research was to develop a path model that would explain determinants of risk perception. Incorporating new variables above and beyond those previously studied was an important focus in building on the foundation of results from previous research. Male and female undergraduates completed questionnaires asking for comparative risk judgments for getting chronic diseases in the future, their perception of control for preventing these conditions, as well as their experience with them. In addition, participants completed measures of lifestyle, impulsivity, health value, and time perspective. Consistent with hypotheses, a significant optimistic bias was demonstrated for five of seven chronic conditions. Further, three alternative path models were specified; results showed that one offered a good fit in the present sample. Further, most paths were significant in the hypothesized direction. The final path model demonstrated that control, experience, health behaviours, and health value were all directly and significantly linked to risk perception in the hypothesized directions whereas time perspective and impulsivity variables affected health behaviours and health value.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2005 .P535. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: B, page: 4093. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".