Search

In this paper, we examine discourse in public deliberations in pre-development locales in the UK and US about advantages and disadvantages of future shale development ('fracking'). We aimed to understand how people anticipate potential health effects, broadly construed, of environmental toxicity and disturbance in the context of planned, but not yet implemented, energy development. In day-long deliberations with small, diverse groups in two cities in each country (London, Cardiff in the UK; Los Angeles, Santa Barbara in the US), participants discussed impacts on health and well-being using three main rubrics: 'It's money or health', 'Why take chances?' and 'Beyond the tipping point'. Throughout, participants framed health as an intrinsically moral issue, with collective responsibility as a dominant normative frame. We identify the concept of compound risk to underscore effects of multiple risks and hazards on people's sensibilities about anticipated future health and environmental harm. The findings demonstrate how and why diverse publics in pre-impact sites in both countries saw shale extraction as high stakes development that poses significant, often unacceptable, risks to human and environmental health and well-being. Risks extended beyond toxicity to broad threats to health, including, for some, the end of life as we know it on the planet. Overall, participants' discussions of health were more connected to social categories and their underlying moral principles than to technological details. This work contributes evidence of blurred boundaries between environment and health as well as the importance people place on social risks in the context of proposed energy system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with different cultural worldviews conceptualise risks in distinct ways, yet this work has not extended to personal illness risk perception. The purpose of this study was to 1) examine the relationships between two types of cultural worldviews (Hierarchy-Egalitarian; Individualism-Communitarianism) and perceived risk (perceived severity and susceptibility) for diabetes and colon cancer, 2) test whether health literacy modifies the above relationships, and 3) investigate whether trust in government health information functions as a putative mediator of the relations between cultural worldviews and disease perceived risk. We recruited (N = 600) participants from a nationally-representative Internet survey panel. Results were weighted so the findings are representative of the general United States population. People with a more hierarchical worldview expressed lower perceived susceptibility to developing both diabetes and colon cancer, and perceived these diseases to be less severe, relative to those with a less hierarchical (more egalitarian) worldview. There was no significant association between individualistic worldview and perceived risk. Health literacy modified the relationships between hierarchical worldview and perceived risk; the associations between hierarchical worldview and lower perceived severity were stronger for those with limited health literacy. We did not observe indirect effects of cultural worldviews on perceived risk through trust in health information from government sources. It may be useful to identify specifically tailored risk communication strategies for people with hierarchical and individualistic worldviews, especially those with limited health literacy, that emphasise their important cultural values. Further research examining cultural components of illness risk perceptions may enhance our understanding of risk-protective behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US quarantine announcements do not include information that there is a moderate likelihood that Ebola-exposed people might exhibit symptoms, signalling infectiousness, beyond 21 days. As a result it is possible that if and when there is media coverage in the US of a delayed-symptom case, it might create citizen distrust in public health authorities and information and cause citizens to overestimate the risk of Ebola infection. In this article we report a research study which examined whether openness about post-21-day symptoms would attenuate negative reactions. We ran two experiments with online opportunity (Amazon mTurk) samples of Americans in late October-early November 2014, between the two deaths from Ebola in the US. In these experiments we assessed the reactions of respondents who saw quantitative estimates of post-21-day-symptom likelihood (n = 1413), or were informed about post-21-day symptoms with a rationale for the 21-day period after all saw a mock news story about a US case of 30th-day symptoms (n = 425). We found in both experiments that perceived risk increased and trust declined when people learned of post-21-day symptoms, and disbelief increased that 21 days without symptoms means no Ebola infection. In Study 2, informed persons and controls changed perceived risk and trust relative to baseline; test-group participants distrusted local medical personnel less and wanted shorter quarantines compared to controls who did not receive the information. Our findings suggest that informing Americans about the small likelihood of post-21-days Ebola symptoms would not increase perceived risk and distrust, and might diminish negative reactions to the media reporting a case who developed symptoms of Ebola after 21 days. Thus, public health officials wanting appropriate public responses to potential or actual epidemics may benefit from early communication of unpleasant infectious-disease facts before events reveal them, and signal officials’ lack of preparedness for public reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]