Population risk, actual risk, perceived risk, and cancer control: a discussion.

Abstract

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.