Does Ostracism Help Smokers Quit?

Research on the effects of stigmatizing on smokers shows that it is stressful to be reminded of one's devalued status and stigmatization might help or hinder quitting intentions. In this study, we asked smokers (N=277) to play an online ball-tossing Cyberball game, ostensibly with non-smoking strangers. Participants were randomly assigned to an ostracism (included or excluded) and concealment (smoking status concealed or revealed) manipulation. We found that exclusion led smokers (directly or via threat appraisals) to be more stressed, cognitively depleted, rejection sensitive, have fewer positive cognitions, see themselves at greater health risk, feel more internalized stigma, and be more interested in quitting, with stronger effects when their smoking status was revealed instead of concealed. These results suggest that concealment is imperfect in protecting against stigma and that exclusion (although stressful and cognitively taxing) can lead to cognitions, attitudes, and intentions helping smokers quit and thus leave their devalued identity. The results do not imply that one ought to stigmatize; stigmatizing smokers might be unethical or create barriers to health-seeking behaviors which could counteract structural efforts to help smokers quit. Future research should examine the role of self-affirmation to increase the effectiveness of health messages perceived as stigmatizing or identity threatening.

The interplay between cognitive and affective risks in predicting COVID-19 precautions: a longitudinal representative study of Americans.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive risk figures prominently in models predicting health behaviors, but affective risk is also important. We examined the interplay between cognitive risk (personal likelihood of COVID-19 infection or death) and affective risk (worry about COVID-19) in predicting COVID-19 precautionary behaviors. We also examined how outbreak severity bias (overestimation of the severity of COVID-19 in one's community) predicted these outcomes. DESIGN: In a representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 738; Mage = 46.8; 52% women; 78% white), participants who had not had COVID-19 took two online surveys two weeks apart in April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed cognitive risk, affective risk, and outbreak severity bias at baseline and at follow-up two precaution variables: prevention behaviors (e.g. social distancing) and behavioral willingness (e.g. vaccinations). RESULTS: Overall, affective risk better predicted precautions than cognitive risk. Moreover, overestimating the severity of the outbreak predicted more affective risk (but not cognitive risk) and in turn more precautions. Additional analyses showed that when affective risk was lower (as opposed to higher) greater cognitive risk and outbreak severity bias both predicted more precautions. CONCLUSION: These findings illustrate the importance of affective risk and outbreak severity bias in understanding COVID-19 precautionary behavior.

Descriptive Norms and Prototypes Predict COVID-19 Prevention Cognitions and Behaviors in the United States: Applying the Prototype Willingness Model to Pandemic Mitigation.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, prevention behavior adoption occurred in a rapidly changing context. In contrast to expectancy-value theories, the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM) is well-suited for investigating novel and socially informed behaviors. PURPOSE: We explored whether PWM social cognitions predicted coronavirus prevention behaviors. METHOD: A representative sample of United States adults (N = 738; Mage = 46.8; 51.8% women; 78% white; April 2020) who had not had COVID-19 reported PWM predictor variables (perceived vulnerability, prevention descriptive norms, prototypes engaging in prevention behavior, and prevention behavioral intentions). Two weeks later, participants reported their prevention behaviors (handwashing, mask-wearing, social distancing, etc.) and future public health behavioral willingness (contact tracing, temperature checks, etc.). RESULTS: Controlling for putative demographic, past behavior, and coronavirus-contextual (e.g., local infection rates) covariates, mediation models indicated that higher norms and favorable prototypes were associated with greater prevention behavioral intentions, which in turn predicted increased prevention behavior, F(18, 705) = 92.20, p < .001, R2 = .70. Higher norms and favorable prototypes associated both directly and indirectly (through greater prevention behavioral intention) with greater willingness to engage in emerging public health behaviors, F(15, 715) = 21.49, p < .001, R2 = .31. CONCLUSIONS: Greater descriptive norms and favorable prototypes for prevention behavior predicted: (a) future prevention behaviors through increases in behavioral intentions and (b) willingness to participate in emerging public health behaviors. These results held across demographic groups, political affiliation, and severity of regional outbreaks. Public health efforts to curb pandemics should highlight normative prevention participation and enhance positive prototypes.

Reminders of a Stigmatized Status Might Help Smokers Quit.

As members of a devalued group, it is not surprising that smokers experience stigmatization and discrimination. But it is not clear if smokers react to these experiences by moving toward or away from their group membership and identity as smokers. Guided by the identity threat model of stigma (Major and O'Brien, 2005) we examined the process of stigmatization and its emotional, cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral consequences. We experimentally examined how reading a stigmatizing newspaper article or a control article (Experiment 1) and recalling one's experience with smoking discrimination or a control prompt (Experiment 2) affected smokers' responses. We also examined the role of cultural contexts (U.S. vs. Denmark; only in Experiment 1) and smoking identity. In Experiment 1, we used a community sample of smokers from the U.S. (N = 111) and Denmark (N = 111). We found that reading the stigmatizing article (compared to the control) caused more rejection sensitivity (U.S. participants only) and more intentions to quit smoking (both U.S. and Danish participants) for smokers low in smoking identity. In Experiment 2, we used an online sample of 194 U.S. smokers and found that recalling instances of mistreatment made smokers more stressed, rejection sensitive, and interested in smoking cessation, when smokers appraised the stigma cue as threatening. Thus, we generally found that identity threat moved smokers toward leaving their stigmatized group (e.g., quitting smoking) rather than away from it. Our studies highlight the importance of understanding psychological process by which smokers distance themselves from their spoiled identity.

DOES IT HELP SMOKERS IF WE STIGMATIZE THEM? A TEST OF THE STIGMA-INDUCED IDENTITY THREAT MODEL AMONG U.S. AND DANISH SMOKERS.

Research shows that smokers feel stigmatized, but does stigmatizing smokers do more harm than good? The model of stigma-induced identity threat was used to experimentally examine how U.S. and Danish smokers respond to stigma-relevant cues. Heavy smokers (112 Americans, 112 Danes) smoked a cigarette while giving a speech that was either video (stigma-visible condition) or audio recorded (stigma-concealed condition). Smokers high in self-concept reacted to the stigma-visible (as opposed to the stigma-concealed) condition with greater physiological reactivity (b = -2.80, p = .05), cognitive depletion (U.S. smokers, b = -0.06, p = .11), self-exempting beliefs (b = 0.32, p < .001), and less interest in stopping smoking (b = 0.28, p = .02). Thus, stigmatization led smokers toward emotional, cognitive, and attitudinal reactions that might make them less likely to quit. Future research should examine when smokers respond to stigmatization by quitting rather than with resistance or indifference.

The hubris hypothesis: The downside of comparative optimism displays.

According to the hubris hypothesis, observers respond more unfavorably to individuals who express their positive self-views comparatively than to those who express their positive self-views non-comparatively, because observers infer that the former hold a more disparaging view of others and particularly of observers. Two experiments extended the hubris hypothesis in the domain of optimism. Observers attributed less warmth (but not less competence) to, and showed less interest in affiliating with, an individual displaying comparative optimism (the belief that one's future will be better than others' future) than with an individual displaying absolute optimism (the belief that one's future will be good). Observers responded differently to individuals displaying comparative versus absolute optimism, because they inferred that the former held a gloomier view of the observers' future. Consistent with previous research, observers still attributed more positive traits to a comparative or absolute optimist than to a comparative or absolute pessimist.

A randomized controlled trial of co-payment elimination: the CHORD trial.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve adherence by reducing co-payments through value-based insurance design are become more prevalent despite limited evidence of improved health outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether eliminating patient co-payments for blood pressure medications improves blood pressure control. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The Collaboration to Reduce Disparities in Hypertension (CHORD) was a randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up conducted among patients from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh Veterans Administration Medical Centers. We enrolled 479 patients with poorly controlled systolic blood pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to: a) receive reductions in co-payments from $8 to $0 per medication per month for each antihypertensive prescription filled, b) a computerized behavioral intervention (CBI), c) both co-pay reduction and CBI, or d) usual care. Our main outcome measure was change in systolic blood pressure from enrollment to 12 months post enrollment. We also measured adherence using the medication possession ratio in a subset of participants. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions between the co-payment interventions and the CBI interventions. There was no relative difference in the change in medication possession ratio between baseline and 12 months (0.05% and -.90% in control and incentive groups, respectively; P = .74) or in continuous medication gaps of 30, 60, or 90 days. Blood pressure decreased among all participants, but to a similar degree between the financial incentive and control groups. Systolic pressure within the incentive group dropped 13.2 mm Hg versus 15.2 mm Hg for the control group (difference = 2.0; 95% CI, -2.3 to 6.3; P = .36). The proportion of patients with blood pressure under control at 12 months was 29.5% in the incentive group versus 33.9 in the control group (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with poorly controlled blood pressure, financial incentives--as implemented in this trial--that reduced patient cost sharing for blood pressure medications did not improve medication adherence or blood pressure control.

A randomized controlled trial of negative co-payments: the CHORD trial.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based insurance designs are being widely used. We undertook this study to examine whether a financial incentive that lowered co-payments for blood pressure medications below $0 improved blood pressure control among patients with poorly controlled hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants from 3 Pennsylvania hospitals (n = 337) were randomly assigned to: a) be paid $8 per medication per month for filling blood pressure prescriptions, b) a computerized behavioral intervention (CBI), c) both payment and CBI, or d) usual care. The primary outcome was change in blood pressure between baseline and 12 months post enrollment. We also measured adherence using the medication possession ratio in a subset of participants. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions between the incentive and the CBI interventions. There were no significant changes in medication possession ratio in the treatment group. Blood pressure decreased among all participants, but to a similar degree between the financial incentive and control groups. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) dropped 13.7 mm Hg for the incentive group versus 10.0 mm Hg for the control group (difference = ­3.7; 95% CI, ­9.0 to 1.6; P = .17). The proportion of patients with blood pressure under control 12 months post enrollment was 35.6% of the incentive group versus 27.7% of the control group (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.5; P = .19). Diabetics in the incentive group had an average drop in SBP of 12.7 mm Hg between baseline and 12 months compared with 4.0 mm Hg in the control group (P = .02). Patients in the incentive group without diabetes experienced average SBP reductions of 15.0 mm Hg, compared with 16.3 mm Hg for control group nondiabetics (P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with poorly controlled blood pressure, financial incentives­as implemented in this trial­did not improve blood pressure control or adherence except among patients with diabetes.

Does moralization motivate smokers to quit? A longitudinal study of representative samples of smokers in the United States and Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Moralization refers to the gradual cultural and personal process by which objects or activities move from being morally neutral to morally contemptuous. Research suggests important cross-cultural differences in how smokers react to being targets of moralization. However, research has not examined whether smokers who agree with moralized sentiments about smoking are more willing to quit or reduce their smoking. Additionally, the mediating role of perceived personal risk has not been examined. METHODS: In this study, representative samples of smokers in Denmark (a smoking lenient country; N = 429) and the United States (a smoking prohibitive country; N = 431) completed surveys 6 months apart. RESULTS: As expected, Danish smokers (compared to U.S. smokers) moralized less and estimated that their personal risk of lung cancer was smaller. Furthermore, moralization at T1 predicted an increase in perceived personal risk at T2 (for Danish smokers and marginally for U.S. smokers), a decrease in smoking behaviors (for Danish smokers only), and an increase in quitting intentions (marginally for Danish smokers only). For Danish smokers, perceived personal risk mediated the relationship between moralization and quitting intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Moralization predicted an increase in perceived personal risk, an increase in quitting intentions, and a reduction in smoking behaviors, especially for the Danish sample. Future research should examine the effects of moralization in different cultural contexts.

Heart attack risk perception biases among hypertension patients: the role of educational level and worry.

Risk biases such as comparative optimism (thinking one is better off than similar others) and risk inaccuracy (misestimating one's risk compared to one's calculated risk) for health outcomes are common. Little research has investigated racial or socioeconomic differences in these risk biases. Results from a survey of individuals with poorly controlled hypertension (N=813) indicated that participants showed (1) comparative optimism for heart attack risk by underestimating their heart attack risk compared to similar others, and (2) risk inaccuracy by overestimating their heart attack risk compared to their calculated heart attack risk. More highly educated participants were more comparatively optimistic because they rated their personal risk as lower; education was not related to risk inaccuracy. Neither race nor the federal poverty level was related to risk biases. Worry partially mediated the relationship between education and personal risk. Results are discussed as they relate to the existing literature on risk perception.

Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: a qualitative approach.

OBJECTIVES: The present research explored the role that culture plays in smokers' description of their risk perceptions and experiences as targets of moralization. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 15 smokers each from Denmark (a smoking-lenient culture) and the USA (a smoking-prohibitive culture). RESULTS: Smokers said they were well aware of the risks of smoking yet minimized the risks of active and passive smoking; Danes were particularly likely to minimize these risks. Smokers also described many experiences as targets of moralization and accepted some elements of moralized attitudes although overall Danes more strongly rejected moralized opinions. Smokers described adjusting to moralization by changing when and where but not how much they smoked. CONCLUSION: It is important to consider cultural influences on moralization and risk perception of smoking.

Smoking cross-culturally: risk perceptions among young adults in Denmark and the United States.

Research examining smokers' understanding of their smoking risk reveals that smokers acknowledge some risk but often deny or minimize personal risk. We examined risk perceptions of lung cancer among smokers and non-smokers in a smoking-lenient (Denmark) and a smoking-prohibitive (the United States) culture. Participants were 275 Danish students attending trade schools (mean age 22.6 years) and 297 US students attending community colleges in Florida (mean age 23.6 years). Results revealed cross-cultural differences suggesting that Danish smokers showed greater risk minimization than US smokers. In addition, in both countries the risk of a typical smoker was rated as lower by smokers than non-smokers, and smokers rated their personal risk as lower than they rated the risk of the typical smoker. Cross-cultural differences in moralization of smoking might be one explanation for these findings.

Patient opinions regarding 'pay for performance for patients'.

BACKGROUND: Pay for performance (P4P) programs have shown only modest improvements in outcomes and do not target patient behaviors. Many large employers and payers are turning to pay for performance for patients (P4P4P) to reduce health costs and improve the health of their covered populations. How these programs may be perceived by patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' opinion of the acceptability of P4P4P. DESIGN: Cross-sectional self-administered survey. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in waiting rooms in two university-based primary care clinics. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked their opinions about paying people to quit smoking, lose weight, control their blood pressure, or control their diabetes. RESULTS: Respondents were split on whether P4P4P is desirable. Thirty-six to 42% thought it was a good/excellent idea to pay smokers to quit smoking, obese people to lose weight, people with hypertension to control their blood pressure, or people with diabetes to control their blood sugar, while 41-44% of the sample thought it was a bad/very bad idea. Smokers and patients who were obese endorsed P4P4P more favorably as a means to achieving tobacco cessation and weight loss than their non-smoking and non-obese counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of paying patients for performance by the general population is equivocal. Establishing the efficacy of paying patients for performance may help it gain wider acceptance.

Acculturation matters: risk perceptions of smoking among Bosnian refugees living in the United States.

The relationship between acculturation and health behavior change is complex. Little research has focused on acculturation and perceptions of health-related risks. This study investigated acculturation and risk perceptions of heart attack and lung cancer among a group of refugees. Questionnaires were distributed to a sample of Bosnian refugees living in the United States (N = 55). Results indicated that smokers thought they were less at risk than other smokers and no more at risk than non-smokers, whereas non-smokers did not think they were less at risk than other non-smokers. Greater acculturation was associated with greater perception of smokers' risk of heart attack and lung cancer. Smoking cessation interventions with refugees should incorporate culturally appropriate risk information.

Comparing the standard rating scale and the magnifier scale for assessing risk perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: A new risk perception rating scale ("magnifier scale") was recently developed to reduce elevated perceptions of low-probability health events, but little is known about its performance. The authors tested whether the magnifier scale lowers risk perceptions for low-probability (in 0%-1% magnifying glass section of scale) but not high-probability (>1%) events compared to a standard rating scale (SRS). METHOD: In studies 1 (n = 463) and 2 (n = 105), undergraduates completed a survey assessing risk perceptions of high- and low-probability events in a randomized 2 x 2 design: in study 1 using the magnifier scale or SRS, numeric risk information provided or not, and in study 2 using the magnifier scale or SRS, high- or low-probability event. In study 3, hypertension patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs hospital completed a similar survey (n = 222) assessing risk perceptions of 2 self-relevant high-probability events-heart attack and stroke-with the magnifier scale or the SRS. RESULTS: In study 1, when no risk information was provided, risk perceptions for both high- and low-probability events were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) when using the magnifier scale compared to the SRS, but risk perceptions were no different by scale when risk information was provided (interaction term: P = 0.003). In studies 2 and 3, risk perceptions for the high-probability events were significantly lower using the magnifier scale than the SRS (P = 0.015 and P = 0.014, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The magnifier scale lowered risk perceptions but did so for low- and high-probability events, suggesting that the magnifier scale should not be used for assessments of risk perceptions for high-probability events.

Do age and social relations moderate the relationship between self-rated health and mortality among adult Danes?

It is well established that self-rated health (SRH) predicts mortality even after controlling for a wide range of factors. We explored the extent to which age and social relations (structural and functional) influenced the relationship between SRH and mortality (after 13 years follow-up) in a representative sample of adult Danes (N=6693). After controlling for socioeconomic status, illness, and lifestyle variables, we found that age moderated the SRH-mortality relationship such that it was present for respondents under 55 but absent for respondents over 56. In addition, weaker structural (but not functional) social relations increased mortality directly but neither structural nor functional social relations moderated the SRH-mortality relationship. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Are comparative risk judgements consistent across time and events?

Research reveals pervasive optimism in people's comparative risk judgements such that people believe they are less likely than others to experience negative events. Two studies explored the extent to which people are consistent in their comparative risk judgements across time and events. Both studies found strong evidence for consistency across time and some evidence for consistency across events. The consistency across time and events was moderated by experience. Specifically, when viewed together, the studies suggest that experience produces an initial decrease in the consistency of comparative judgements (Study 2), followed by greater consistency in subsequent judgements (Study 1). The discussion focuses on reconciling evidence demonstrating consistency with evidence demonstrating variability.