Search

How do cultural biases, trust in government, and perceptions of risk and protective actions influence compliance with regulation of COVID-19? Analyzing Chinese (n = 646) and American public opinion samples (n = 1,325) from spring 2020, we use Grid–Group Cultural Theory and the Protective Action Decision Model to specify, respectively, cultural influences on public risk perceptions and decision-making regarding protective actions. We find that cultural biases mostly affect protective actions indirectly through public perceptions. Regardless of country, hierarchical cultural biases increase protective behaviors via positive perceptions of protective actions. However, other indirect effects of cultural bias via public perceptions vary across both protective actions and countries. Moreover, trust in government only mediates the effect of cultural bias in China and risk perception only mediates the effect of cultural bias in the United States. Our findings suggest that regulators in both countries should craft regulations that are congenial to culturally diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty that arises from disputes among scientists seems to foster public skepticism or noncompliance. Communication of potential cues to the relative performance of contending scientists might affect judgments of which position is likely more valid. We used actual scientific disputes—the nature of dark matter, sea level rise under climate change, and benefits and risks of marijuana—to assess Americans' responses (n = 3150). Seven cues—replication, information quality, the majority position, degree source, experience, reference group support, and employer—were presented three cues at a time in a planned‐missingness design. The most influential cues were majority vote, replication, information quality, and experience. Several potential moderators—topical engagement, prior attitudes, knowledge of science, and attitudes toward science—lacked even small effects on choice, but cues had the strongest effects for dark matter and weakest effects for marijuana, and general mistrust of scientists moderately attenuated top cues' effects. Risk communicators can take these influential cues into account in understanding how laypeople respond to scientific disputes, and improving communication about such disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disparity between the number of patients awaiting organ transplantation and organ availability increases each year. One of the chief obstacles to organ donation is religiosity. We examine the role of religiosity and other related beliefs in organ-donation decisions among Christians (studies 1 and 3) and Jews (study 2). In all samples, we found a significant interaction between religiosity and the salience of a religious context, manipulated by the order of the questions, such that religiosity (and specifically, extrinsic religion) was significantly associated with lower support for organ donations—but only when religious attitudes were elicited first, not when support for organ donation, or questions about other beliefs (study 3) appeared first. We examine possible mechanisms underlying this effect and discuss theoretical and practical implications of this finding to increase support for organ donations in both personal and policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study is to better understand the effects of media attention on Americans' perceptions of risk by analyzing the different media sources and outlets, or "repertoires," reported as used during the small 2016–2017 Zika outbreak in the U.S. We analyzed survey data from a four-wave longitudinal panel study over nine months – July 19, 2016 through April 24, 2017 (n = 743) – using an online panel of American adults. Media attention related to ratings of personal risk, U.S. risk, and need for action. Personal risk was enhanced more by reported attention to international coverage, reduced by certain reported website attention, but enhanced by reported attention to public health agency websites. U.S. risk was enhanced by reported attention to both domestic and international coverages, reduced by television. Judged need for U.S. action was enhanced more by exposure to domestic coverage, reduced by reported attention to television and local newspapers, but enhanced by reported exposure to BBC and CNN. Our results demonstrate how the use of different media outlets and sources are related to different perceptions of risk and need for action during 2016–2017 Zika outbreak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cross-sectional surveys, despite their value, are unable to probe dynamics of risk perceptions over time. An earlier longitudinal panel study of Americans' views on Ebola risk inspired this partial replication on Americans' views of Zika risks, using multilevel modeling to assess temporal changes in these views and inter-individual factors affecting them, and to determine if similar factors were influential for both non-epidemics in the USA. Baseline Zika risk scores – as in the Ebola study – were influenced by dread of the Zika virus, perceptions of a near-miss outbreak, and perceived likelihood of an outbreak. Judgments of both personal risk and national risk from Zika declined significantly, and individual rates of news following predicted slower decline of perceived national risk in both cases. However, few other factors affected changes in Zika risk judgments, which did not replicate in a validation half-sample, whereas several factors slowed or increased the rate of decline in Ebola judgments of the U.S. risk. These differences might reflect differences in the diseases caused by these two viruses – e.g., Ebola's much greater lethality – but more longitudinal studies across multiple diseases will be needed to test that speculation. Benefits of such studies to health risk analysis outweigh the difficulties they pose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two survey approaches to measuring cultural effects on risk views have been developed, both informed by the grid/group approach of Douglas and Wildavsky, well known to many risk analysts. Using data from an online national US panel, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted of 'cultural theory' (CT) and 'cultural cognition theory' (CCT) measures, which respectively purport to measure (1) four worldviews or cultural biases – hierarchism, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism – using both individual items and longer statements, and (2) indices of grid (hierarchism-egalitarianism) and group (individualism-communitarianism) using individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses showed CT measures (items and statements) tended to cluster as expected (i.e. four worldviews), particularly items which on their own exhibited the best fit, while CCT items loaded on the two hypothesized dimensions but with poor fit (particularly the reversed egalitarian and communitarian items to represent high-grid and low-group, respectively). Combining all measures representing the four cultural biases, or adding in the communitarian subscale for CCT, also created plausibly coherent factoring (e.g. hierarchical measures from CT and CCT loaded together, as did the CT-fatalist items and statements with the CCT-communitarian items), but model fit was poor again. Depending upon the criterion used, CT or CCT items' factor scores appeared the superior predictor of personal and U.S. risk perceptions, but overall predictive validity was modest. These results were somewhat improved among those with high (versus low) political knowledge. If survey-based research on culture's role in risk views is to thrive, further scholarly attention to such measurement issues is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charitable giving entails the act of foregoing personal resources in order to improve the conditions of other people. In the present paper, we systematically examine two dimensions integral to donation decisions that have thus far received relatively little attention but can explain charitable behavior rather well: the perceptions of cost for the donor and benefit for the recipients. In line with current theories in judgment and decision making, we hypothesize that people weigh these dimensions subjectively and perceive them asymmetrically, consistent with prospect theory. Costs for the donor are typically perceived as losses, whereas benefits for recipients are perceived as gains. In four studies, we presented several scenarios to participants in which both donation amounts (costs) and number of lives helped (benefits) were manipulated while keeping the ratio of costs and benefits constant. Results from Studies 1 and 2 showed that willingness to help decreased as donation amounts and number of lives helped increased. Additionally, Studies 3 and 4 provide evidence for a solution to reduce the asymmetry and increase donation amounts as the number of lives at risk increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Longitudinal studies of dynamics of concern and judged risk for hazards have been rare, but can offer fresh insights. Four of five surveys of an American panel over five months provided data to test the relationship of diverse factors with concern and judged risk for self/family, the nation, and the world regarding Ebola, both at baseline and in trends for individuals. The initial survey in early December 2014 followed by three weeks the second and last death from Ebola in the U.S., whereas media coverage peaked in October after the first such death; the last survey occurred in May 2015, when new cases in West Africa had nearly ceased. We measured several predictors of risk perception from the literature, including news following, dread of Ebola, 'near-miss' beliefs of an outbreak, cultural cognition worldviews, and uncertainty aversion. Trend analyses document that judgments of personal risk remained stable over this period, while concern, U.S. risk, and global risk declined. Time series multilevel modeling allowed intercepts and individual slopes of concern and risk judgments to vary. Significant predictors of risk judgments included following Ebola news, perceived likelihood of an outbreak, 'near-miss' beliefs, cultural cognition worldviews, and dread of Ebola. These findings both confirm prior associations (e.g. news attention) and suggest new ones (e.g. near-miss beliefs affecting concern) for factors affecting concern and judged risk, as well as illustrate the new insights generated when longitudinal studies include three or more observations of the same variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing from psychological research, the study examines how story form influences reader reaction to news accounts of mass violence in Africa. An online survey with embedded experimental conditions was administered to a US Internet panel (n = 638). Results show that how the story is told affects reader emotional response and, indirectly, charitable giving. Story personification had the strongest influence, followed by stories with photographic images. Use of statistical and mobilizing information had only a small effect on reader response. The straight news story - the predominant form of news reporting - evoked the weakest emotional response. The findings underscore that simply 'reporting the news' is often insufficient to arouse audience response. The reader needs empathetic connection, especially when dealing with large-scale distant suffering. Applying psychological principles to practical journalism, the study is intended to guide media practitioners and activists as they seek better ways to bring attention to the world's most deplorable conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty that arises from disputes among scientists seems to foster public skepticism or noncompliance. Communication of potential cues to the relative performance of contending scientists might affect judgments of which position is likely more valid. We used actual scientific disputes-the nature of dark matter, sea level rise under climate change, and benefits and risks of marijuana-to assess Americans' responses (n = 3150). Seven cues-replication, information quality, the majority position, degree source, experience, reference group support, and employer-were presented three cues at a time in a planned-missingness design. The most influential cues were majority vote, replication, information quality, and experience. Several potential moderators-topical engagement, prior attitudes, knowledge of science, and attitudes toward science-lacked even small effects on choice, but cues had the strongest effects for dark matter and weakest effects for marijuana, and general mistrust of scientists moderately attenuated top cues' effects. Risk communicators can take these influential cues into account in understanding how laypeople respond to scientific disputes, and improving communication about such disputes., (© 2023 Society for Risk Analysis.)

In a great many situations where we are asked to aid persons whose lives are endangered, we are not able to help everyone. What are the emotional and motivational consequences of "not helping all"? In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that negative affect arising from children that could not be helped decreases the warm glow of positive feeling associated with aiding the children who can be helped. This demotivation from the children outside of our reach may be a form of "pseudoinefficacy" that is non-rational. We should not be deterred from helping whomever we can because there are others we are not able to help.