Does risk-information processing differ as a function of risk status?

The present study sought to examine potential differences in risk information processing among different groups of college-age men. The study was based on the Prototype/Willingness model of adolescent health risk behavior, a modified dual-process model. Dual-process theories posit that there are two distinct systems of processing. The rational system is deliberate and analytical and requires greater time and effort. In contrast, the experiential system operates more quickly, is less reasoned, and is influenced by affect, heuristics, and images. Adolescents who score high on behavioral willingness (BW) and low on behavioral intention (BI) are considered at-risk because it is likely that they will engage in risk behavior, but it is unlikely that they will take precautions to protect themselves from the negative consequences of that behavior. They are unlikely to protect themselves because they have no plans to engage in the behavior; therefore, they do not tend to feel vulnerable to the consequences of that behavior. It was hypothesized that these at-risk adolescents would demonstrate a tendency, more so than other adolescents, to employ the experiential system when processing risk information. Male college students were categorized into three groups based on their baseline BI and BW: low BI/low BW, high Bl/high BW, and at-risk (low Bl/high BW). All participants read about a fictional peer (an exemplar) who engages in casual sex and contracts an STD. The experimental conditions differed in the favorability of the exemplar described. In one condition, the exemplar was outgoing, likeable, and hard-working, and in the other he was apathetic, less social, and less likeable. Following the manipulation, participants read factual information about STDs. Dependent measures included BI and BW to engage in casual sex, exemplar favorability, absolute and conditional perceived risk, recall of the STD information, and response times to all of the measures. Results indicated that, in general, at-risk participants did not tend to use an experiential processing style more than the other two groups did. There was evidence that the at-risk group paid more attention to risk information and spent more time deliberating about their intentions, indicators of more rational processing. Future research needs to replicate these findings and apply them to interventions aimed at discouraging at-risk adolescents from engaging in risk behavior