Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Renner, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Renner, B.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Healthy Living
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Biased Reasoning: Adaptive Responses to Health Risk Feedback

Britta Renner

University of Greifswald, Germany

The present study examined reactions toward repeated selfrelevant feedback. Participants in a community health screening received feedback about their cholesterol level on two separate occasions. Reactions to the first feedback were examined with regard to feedback valence and expectedness. The findings showed that negative feedback was devalued, but only when it was unexpected. Feedback consistency was incorporated into analyses of the second feedback. Again, results showed that negative feedback was not always devalued—only when it was inconsistent with the first feedback. Furthermore, positive feedback was not unconditionally accepted. When receiving unexpected positive feedback of low consistency, recipients were doubtful about its accuracy. Conversely, expected positive feedback was accepted regardless of its consistency. These results suggest that negative or unexpected positive feedbacks evoke greater sensitivity to feedback consistency, indicating elaborate cognitive processing. Theoretical accounts of these findings are discussed.

Key Words: risk perception • expectations • motivation • feedback • reasoning

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 3, 384-396 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203261296


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Health PsycholHome page
D. P. French, D. Hevey, S. Sutton, A. L. Kinmonth, and T. M. Marteau
Personal and Social Comparison Information about Health Risk: Reaction to Information and Information Search
J Health Psychol, May 1, 2006; 11(3): 497 - 510.
[Abstract] [PDF]