Marie Helweg-Larsen

TO NOD OR NOT TO NOD: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND STATUS IN FEMALE AND MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS

Gender studies show that women and men communicate using different styles, but may use either gender style if there are situational status differences. Considering the universal gesture of head nodding as a submissive form of expression, this study investigated head nodding by observing female and male college students in positions of subordinate and equal status. We observed head nodding (N = 452) in classroom interactions between professor−student and student−student dyads. Overall, women nodded more than men and students nodded more to professors speaking than peers speaking. In addition, female and male students nodded equally to professors speaking, but men nodded less to peers speaking than did women. Thus, both men and women attended to the status and not the gender of the speaker. Future research using varying contexts should further examine the effects of dominance, context, and gender.

Perceived Risk for Future Intimate Partner Violence among Women in a Domestic Violence Shelter

Research investigating women’s risk assessments for intimate partner violence (IPV) shows that women can predict future violence with relative accuracy. Limited research has investigated factors that are associated with perceived risk and the potential behavioral consequences of victim risk perception. Results from a survey of women in a domestic violence shelter (N = 56) indicated that women perceive lower risk of future violence if the abusive relationship were to end and higher risk of violence if it were to continue. Certain abuse experiences were related to elevated perceptions of personal risk for future violence. Further, perceived personal risk predicted the women’s intention to terminate their relationship upon leaving shelter. Results are discussed as they may inform interventions preventing IPV.

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.

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 2X 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.

Effects of Erotophobia on the Persuasiveness of Condom Advertisements Containing Strong or Weak Arguments

Individual differences in erotophobia affect the way people process sexually related information, such as information concerning safer sex. This study tests the hypothesis that people who are erotophobic are less likely to take the central route in information processing about sexual material as described by the elaboration likelihood model. Female college students (n = 94) were randomly assigned to view a condom advertisement containing either strong or weak arguments. Consistent with predictions, all women were more persuaded by the advertisement containing strong rather than weak arguments. However, erotophobic women were also relatively more persuaded by weak arguments than were erotophilic women. Erotophobia appears to interfere with central route processing of sexually related messages.

Will I Divorce or Have a Happy Marriage?: Gender Differences in Comparative Optimism and Estimation of Personal Chances Among U.S. College Students

Previous research shows inconsistent evidence in regard to gender differences in optimism for experiencing a happy marriage or avoiding divorce depending on whether optimism is measured as comparative optimism (thinking you are better off than your peers) or as personal optimism (estimating your own chances). Results from four samples of unmarried college students (N = 814) indicated that men exhibited greater comparative optimism than women for having a happy marriage but not for getting divorced. For having a happy marriage and avoiding divorce, men exhibited greater personal optimism relative to women. Experience (with parental divorce) moderated the gender difference in personal optimism and perceived control partially mediated the gender difference in comparative optimism (but only for having a happy marriage) and in personal optimism (for both having a happy marriage and avoiding divorce). Results are discussed as they relate to the existing literatures on risk perception and gender differences in romantic relationships.

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 ones risk compared to ones 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.

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.