Skip Navigation

JNCI Monographs 1999 1999(25):81-85;
© 1999 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leventhal, H.
Right arrow Articles by Leventhal, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leventhal, H.
Right arrow Articles by Leventhal, E. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 25, 81-85, 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Population Risk, Actual Risk, Perceived Risk, and Cancer Control: a Discussion

Howard Leventhal, Kim Kelly, Elaine A. Leventhal

Affiliations of authors: H. Leventhal, K. Kelly, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ; E. A. Leventhal, Department of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

Correspondence to: Howard Leventhal, Ph.D., Rutgers State University of New Jersey, Institute for Health, 30 College Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (e-mail: howardl{at}rci.rutgers.edu).

Given the difficulty of converting population-based estimates of cancer risk into precise statements of individual risk, it is not surprising that (a) individual differences in risk perception are at best poorly correlated to the best available determination of "actual risk" and to behaviors to prevent and detect and treat cancer, and (b) success in bringing perceived risk into line with actual risk has been limited. These inconsistencies are of concern because individual perceptions of risk are thought to be important motivators of action for the prevention and early detection and treatment of cancer. Following the reviewer's suggestion that risk perceptions are readily influenced by contextual factors, we suggest examining risk perception in a self-regulatory framework in which both risk judgments and motivated action are products of underlying representations of cancer and the self. Self-assessments of risk may access only a part of the data necessary for motivation, whereas motivation to sustain action calls on a larger number of concrete features of the database (symptoms, time loss, consequences). Studies of cancer risk perception can make a major contribution to our understanding of processes involved in self-appraisals and self-management to maximize well-being and to avoid catastrophic disease.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.