Who follows through? Different factors predict initial commitment vs. Following through in a national survey of organ donor registration.

OBJECTIVE: Little research has investigated factors that determine whether people falter in the face of an obstacle or successfully follow through on an initial commitment to act. We integrated multiple theories (the Reasoned Action Approach [RAA], Prototype Willingness Model, and anticipated regret theory) to test which factors predict initial commitment to register as an organ donor and to discover whether different factors predict initial commitment vs. following through with registration. METHODS: Participants from a nationally representative UK sample (N = 1,008) reported their beliefs about organ donation and indicated their decision to register. An obstacle that participants could not foresee was that they had to complete registration in a second survey 3 days after making their initial commitment. RESULTS: Findings showed that 14.8% of participants followed through, 19.7% demonstrated initial commitment, and 65.5% declined to register. Linear discriminant function analysis derived two functions that distinguished these registration patterns. The first function discriminated participants who declined to register from the other groups. The declined group had lower scores on RAA variables compared to their counterparts. The second function distinguished participants who made an initial commitment to register from those who followed through. Follow-through was associated with less anticipated negative affect, more favorable descriptive norms, and stronger identification with organ donors. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that even modest friction leads to a large reduction in follow-through. Moreover, different factors influence initial commitment vs. following through. Whereas RAA variables predicted initial commitment, following through was a function of anticipated negative affect and social processes.

Evidence that Mental Contrasting Reduces Health Information Avoidance.

BACKGROUND: Although learning health information is beneficial for physical well-being, many people opt to avoid learning this information due to its potentially threatening nature. Such avoidance can lead to delays in seeking treatment. PURPOSE: This study tested the effectiveness of a self-regulation technique, mental contrasting (MC), specifically MC of a negative future with a positive current reality, in reducing health information avoidance regarding skin cancer (melanoma). We hypothesized that participants who engaged in MC would be more likely to choose to learn about their melanoma risk than those who completed a control, reflection activity. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 354). Participants were assigned to complete a MC or reflection (control) exercise prior to filling out a melanoma risk calculator. Participants were then asked whether they wanted to learn their melanoma risk, and how much information they would like to know. RESULTS: Chi-Square tests revealed that MC decreased melanoma risk information avoidance compared to the reflection activity (12% vs. 23.4%) but did not make participants more likely seek additional information. CONCLUSION: MC is a brief, engaging, and effective strategy for reducing health information avoidance that could prove useful in medical settings.

It is important to know about the status of one's health in order to take necessary precautions for positive health outcomes. However, people may often engage in "information avoidance," which is the tendency to neglect seeking available and potentially valuable health information. Avoiding health information, especially with regards to one's risk for various diseases, is harmful because it can delay timely treatment. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of mental contrasting­a self-regulation technique­in reducing information avoidance for melanoma skin cancer risk. We recruited 354 participants, and they were randomly assigned to engage in the mental contrasting exercise or reflection (control) exercise. The participants then filled out a melanoma risk calculator and were asked whether they would like to learn their risk for melanoma, and how much information they would like to know. The results showed that mental contrasting decreased melanoma risk information avoidance compared to the reflection activity (12% vs. 23.4%) but did not make participants more likely seek additional information. These findings suggest that mental contrasting can be a brief, engaging, and effective strategy for reducing health information avoidance.