BIROn - Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

    The role of attitude and attitude ambivalence in acceptance of the cancer risk associated with red meat

    Dwan, Connor and Miles, Anne (2018) The role of attitude and attitude ambivalence in acceptance of the cancer risk associated with red meat. Health, Risk and Society 20 , pp. 147-162. ISSN 1369-8575.

    [img]
    Preview
    Text
    23811.pdf - Author's Accepted Manuscript

    Download (582kB) | Preview

    Abstract

    Many cancers are linked to varying degrees with common lifestyle factors such as smoking, drinking and diet, and are therefore partially preventable. Building on existing risk perception literature, this article uses the case of red meat consumption to examine the effect of people’s attitudes and attitude ambivalence on health risk perceptions where there is some uncertainty about the risk. Data was obtained from an opportunity sample of community-dwelling adults (n = 167) using an online survey. The survey included information from a recent press release on the cancer risk associated with red meat consumption (‘probably carcinogenic’) as well as measures of attitude to red meat, attitude ambivalence, ambiguity aversion, information evaluation and acceptance of cancer risk. Participants who were more inclined to accept the risk of cancer linked to red meat tended to have a more negative attitude to red meat, higher attitude ambivalence, more favourable evaluation of the information provided, lower ambiguity aversion and lower red meat consumption; they also tended to be of older age. Attitude was a weaker predictor of risk perception among participants who were highly ambivalent. This, coupled with the finding that people with an ambivalent attitude to red meat evaluated the risk information more favourably and were more convinced that red meat can cause cancer, suggests that attitude ambivalence may play a more important role in risk perception than previously thought. These findings are discussed in the context of strategies for dealing with risk when drawing on rational and non-rational logics of handling evidence.

    Metadata

    Item Type: Article
    Additional Information: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis, available online at the link above.
    School: School of Science > Psychological Sciences
    Depositing User: Anne Miles
    Date Deposited: 04 Sep 2018 10:39
    Last Modified: 11 Feb 2021 20:15
    URI: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/23811

    Statistics

    Downloads
    Activity Overview
    145Downloads
    85Hits

    Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.

    Archive Staff Only (login required)

    Edit/View Item Edit/View Item