@article{ref1,
title="Perception of risk and terrorism-related behavior change: dual influences of probabilistic reasoning and reality testing",
journal="Frontiers in psychology",
year="2017",
author="Denovan, Andrew and Dagnall, Neil and Drinkwater, Kenneth and Parker, Andrew and Clough, Peter",
volume="8",
number="",
pages="e1721-e1721",
abstract="The present study assessed the degree to which probabilistic reasoning performance and thinking style influenced perception of risk and self-reported levels of terrorism-related behavior change. A sample of 263 respondents, recruited via convenience sampling, completed a series of measures comprising probabilistic reasoning tasks (perception of randomness, base rate, probability, and conjunction fallacy), the Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-RT), the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale, and a terrorism-related behavior change scale. Structural equation modeling examined three progressive models. Firstly, the Independence Model assumed that probabilistic reasoning, perception of risk and reality testing independently predicted terrorism-related behavior change. Secondly, the Mediation Model supposed that probabilistic reasoning and reality testing correlated, and indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change through perception of risk. Lastly, the Dual-Influence Model proposed that probabilistic reasoning indirectly predicted terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk, independent of reality testing. <br><br>RESULTS indicated that performance on probabilistic reasoning tasks most strongly predicted perception of risk, and preference for an intuitive thinking style (measured by the IPO-RT) best explained terrorism-related behavior change. The combination of perception of risk with probabilistic reasoning ability in the Dual-Influence Model enhanced the predictive power of the analytical-rational route, with conjunction fallacy having a significant indirect effect on terrorism-related behavior change via perception of risk. The Dual-Influence Model possessed superior fit and reported similar predictive relations between intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational routes and terrorism-related behavior change. The discussion critically examines these findings in relation to dual-processing frameworks. This includes considering the limitations of current operationalisations and recommendations for future research that align outcomes and subsequent work more closely to specific dual-process models.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1664-1078",
doi="10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01721",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01721"
}