Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ...
Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ... Women's Decision-Making And Factors Affecting Their Choice Of ...
less likely to happen to them than to others, while positive things are more likely to happen to them than to others. Weinstein maintains that the greater the perceived probability of the event and the more personal experience the individual has with an event, the greater the tendency to believe that the person's own chances are greater than average. The theories discussed so far reveal a complex relationship between perceptions of risk and actions taken to reduce them. Kronenfeld (1991) argues that if risks are perceived, and actions are taken to reduce them, the relationship between risk perception and risk reduction action should show an inverse relationship. The next section will discuss some studies using the risk perception construct, and how the results could give insights about risk perception in childbirth. Risk perception in applied research When talking about the social and cultural construction of risk, Johnson and Covello (1987) have said that decisions must be made about which risks are important to an individual, and which risks they feel they can safely ignore. The challenge is that there is often no consensus as risks considered by some individuals to be tolerable and acceptable may be unacceptable to others. The thesis proposes that the same is true in childbirth, what some women consider risky, others may not regard as such. The process of childbirth has some inherent risks and uncertainty. One never knows how the process is going to proceed until it has ended. Choosing a place of birth may suggest that the individual concerned has appraised information about risk and safety, and come to a conclusion about what possible risks there are, and how best to deal with them. The individuals therefore are thought to define risk, selectively choose what they consider risky, 35
and then choose the place they consider best placed to deal with their circumstances of labour and delivery. The process differs for different people as risk is not an objective reality but a social process (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982). It has been argued that people use rules of thumb or heuristics by which they arrive at their assessments of risk (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982). The heuristics involve simplifications of information by comparison of new risk information with other more familiar risks to assess the severity of the risk. The significance of the heuristics is that they involve consistent biases away from what is known to be objective facts about the extent of the specific risk. The result of this is that for different individuals, certain kinds of risk appear to be more likely to happen than they actually occur. They see other kinds of risk as less probable than would otherwise be predicted by the experts. An example from the Lele tribe of Zaire (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982) illustrates how different social principles that guide behaviour may affect the judgement of what dangers should be feared most. The tribe is said to be susceptible to many diseases and illnesses, such as, gastro-enteritis, tuberculosis, leprosy, ulcers, barrenness, and pneumonia. However, it focuses on only three risks: being struck by lightening, barrenness, and bronchitis. When these events occur they attribute them to some moral transgression or defect rather than to a physical cause. Douglas and Wildavslcy assert that whatever cause is blamed, society generates the type of accountability and focuses on particular dangers. They go on to suggest that people's concerns and fears about different types of risks could be seen more as ways of maintaining social solidarity than as reflecting health or environmental concerns. They suggest that such concerns must not be taken at face value, but there should be an analysis to determine what social norms, policies, or institutions are being attacked or defended. They assert 36
- Page 1 and 2: Women's Decision-Making And Factors
- Page 3 and 4: Figure 1: The paper elimination pro
- Page 5 and 6: Home themes with supporting quotati
- Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements I would like to th
- Page 9 and 10: Kingdom is a pluralistic society, w
- Page 11 and 12: hospital delivery following a revie
- Page 13 and 14: The committee issued a press notice
- Page 15 and 16: The recommendations of the report u
- Page 17 and 18: home. They also put forward the fac
- Page 19 and 20: equirements for the maximum lowerin
- Page 21 and 22: Previous committees had made their
- Page 23 and 24: The majority of those interviewed f
- Page 25 and 26: The Expert Maternity Group gathered
- Page 27 and 28: • The woman and, if she wishes, h
- Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2: Risk perception Chapter
- Page 31 and 32: From the health practitioner's pers
- Page 33 and 34: 1979), is a second approach to unde
- Page 35: normative factor. The individual's
- Page 39 and 40: example, they worried that the valu
- Page 41 and 42: they can easily imagine or recall a
- Page 43 and 44: are not necessarily chosen because
- Page 45 and 46: make decisions that are not necessa
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 3: Systematic review of fac
- Page 49 and 50: considered. Primary research design
- Page 51 and 52: If the question of the review is no
- Page 53 and 54: Cochrane Database of Systematic rev
- Page 55 and 56: Table 2: Search terms used Search t
- Page 57 and 58: Table 3: Journals that were hand se
- Page 59 and 60: solely on the basis of the study re
- Page 61 and 62: they were recruited, at what stage
- Page 63 and 64: ,,, ... .g eD .E 0 o 4,7; (.5 g .5
- Page 65 and 66: -o -cs •b a) ..o ,:" .., -0 ti-,
- Page 67 and 68: Quality of studies included in the
- Page 69 and 70: ole to play in their preferences fo
- Page 71 and 72: The next chapter discusses methodol
- Page 73 and 74: observable behaviour are used (Holl
- Page 75 and 76: known? What roles do values play in
- Page 77 and 78: male nursing home is used (Applegat
- Page 79 and 80: The procedure ensures a vigorous se
- Page 81 and 82: investigation have for the particip
- Page 83 and 84: In method triangulation, different
- Page 85 and 86: the context being studied. They fur
and then choose the place they consider best placed to deal with their<br />
circumstances of labour and delivery. The process differs for different people as<br />
risk is not an objective reality but a social process (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982).<br />
It has been argued that people use rules of thumb or heuristics by which<br />
they arrive at their assessments of risk (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982).<br />
The heuristics involve simplifications of information by comparison of new risk<br />
information with other more familiar risks to assess the severity of the risk. The<br />
significance of the heuristics is that they involve consistent biases away from what<br />
is known to be objective facts about the extent of the specific risk. The result of<br />
this is that for different individuals, certain kinds of risk appear to be more likely<br />
to happen than they actually occur. They see other kinds of risk as less probable<br />
than would otherwise be predicted by the experts.<br />
An example from the Lele tribe of Zaire (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982)<br />
illustrates how different social principles that guide behaviour may affect the<br />
judgement of what dangers should be feared most. The tribe is said to be<br />
susceptible to many diseases and illnesses, such as, gastro-enteritis, tuberculosis,<br />
leprosy, ulcers, barrenness, and pneumonia. However, it focuses on only three<br />
risks: being struck by lightening, barrenness, and bronchitis. When these events<br />
occur they attribute them to some moral transgression or defect rather than to a<br />
physical cause. Douglas and Wildavslcy assert that whatever cause is blamed,<br />
society generates the type of accountability and focuses on particular dangers.<br />
They go on to suggest that people's concerns and fears about different types of<br />
risks could be seen more as ways of maintaining social solidarity than as<br />
reflecting health or environmental concerns. They suggest that such concerns<br />
must not be taken at face value, but there should be an analysis to determine what<br />
social norms, policies, or institutions are being attacked or defended. They assert<br />
36
Change language