Perceived Temporal Distance of Health Risk

What it measures

Three items measuring how temporally remote a specific health problem feels to the respondent. Murdock and Rajagopal (2017) applied the scale across five studies examining health warning messages, with conditions involving gingivitis, obesity, mouth cancer, skin cancer, and skin damage. The fine-grained 101-point format provides greater statistical sensitivity than a standard Likert scale and is particularly suited to studies where small differences in temporal perception are theoretically meaningful.

Response format

101-point scale (0–100); unique far/long/distant end-point labels per item

Scale items

• How far away does _____ seem to you? (0=not far at all, 100=very far)
• How long does the time period between now and when you could start developing _____ seem to you? (0=not long at all, 100=very long)
• How distant in the future does _____ seem to you? (0=not distant at all, 100=very distant)

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Alphas ranged from .91 to .93 across five studies. The 101-point (0–100) format is unusual and should be retained to maintain comparability with the original. Each item's blank should be filled with the name of the focal health condition. The authors note the scale's potential adaptability to non-health domains (e.g., financial events, life transitions), but psychometric quality should be re-established in any new context.

Citation

Murdock, M.R., & Rajagopal, P. (2017). The sting of social: How emphasizing social consequences in warning messages influences perceptions of risk. Journal of Marketing, 81(2), 83–98.

Keywords