The coverage of health in the British press is modest and health less of a concern than illness among the public.health,S one would expect the media to focus upon discrete events involving health rather than in-depth issues, as this is an practices obviously restrict the number and type of health articles receiving atten-

Previous work on perceived risk, particularly a study by Fischhoff et al. (1978), is critically examined with reference to its applicability to specific health related issues. Judgments were obtained from 159 subjects of 15 health-related items in terms of perceived risk, benefit, and a number of risk characteristics based on the Fischhoff er al. research. In addition, demographic details concerning sex of respondent, seat belt usage, smoking status, and birth order were collected. Using regression analyses it was found that the direction of the risk-benefit relationship was dependent on the issue being judged. Risk was found to be better explained by ratings of likelihood of mishap and likelihood of death as a consequence of mishap. Benefit was poorly explained by the risk characteristics and demographic data. However, subject group characteristics were shown to be important influences on risk and benefit perception in certain situations. The implications of these results for understanding behavioral decisions involving risk in relation to specific activities are discussed.

No abstract

This study investigated how different methods of presenting mortality statistics may influence subjective impressions of the importance of a given cause of death. Subjects were 214 students from the fifth year of a comprehensive school (average age 15). Each subject rated one of six causes of death on a scale labeled "extremely minor-extremely major cause of death" before and after receiving accurate information concerning the number of deaths per annum in the United Kingdom resulting from the cause in question. This information was presented in one of five forms: (a) a statement of what proportion of all deaths resulted from the specified cause; (b) a statement of what percentage of all deaths were so caused; (c) a pie chart representing the proportion pictorially; (d) a bar chart representing the proportion pictorially; and (e) a statement of absolute number of deaths from the specified cause without information on total number of deaths from all causes combined. Analysis showed that subjects discriminated between the different causes both before and after presentation of the information but their ratings were imperfectly calibrated with actual frequencies. Also, the changes in ratings following the information depended significantly on the mode of presentation. Except when subjects were told the absolute frequency, the changes were in the direction of decrease in perceived importance. This decrease was most marked in the bar chart and pie chart conditions. The data are interpreted in relation to the literature on statistical inference processes and on judgmental contrast.