Search

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Health Belief Model (HBM), a value‐expectancy model, is a leading framework in health behavior and communication research. The model is intended to inform targeted communication strategies that promote positive health behaviors. Individual beliefs associated with health risks such as perceived susceptibility and perceived severity are often incorporated into HBM as predictors of health behavior. However, recent studies point to limitations of the current model. At the same time, researchers have successfully used Cultural Theory (CT) to conceptualize, measure, and predict the cultural influences on health risk management. This study applies OLS regression and graphical analysis to examine the relationship between more intrinsic cultural value‐based beliefs and HBM beliefs so as to understand behavioral intentions associated with COVID‐19 among the general public in the United States while statistically controlling for the effects of partisanship and demographic factors. Key points: Age, education, and perceived threats attributable to COVID‐19 are significant predictors of behavioral intentions to wear a face covering in public.Additionally, broader socially constructed beliefs specified by Cultural Theory shape behavioral intentions to wear public face coverings.Health specific beliefs as identified by the Health Belief Model may mediate the influence of broader, more intrinsic beliefs which hold important implications for communications aimed at health behaviors meant to reduce the transmission of COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy controversies concerning the prioritized expansion of the National Energy Grid in the U.S. have drawn our attention to examine the variations of benefit–risk perceptions associated with High Voltage Power Line (HVPL) installation among policy elites, a critical conceptual segment of political actors constituting the U.S. energy policy subsystem. From early psychometric studies to more recent explorations of the emotional aspects of risk appraisal, specifying the role of affective feelings in understanding risk judgment has been a subject of much previous research. This paper seeks to advance such an affect-driven approach in an attempt to account for social psychology-based factors by systemically investigating how specific emotions and personally held intrinsic values and beliefs jointly influence individual-level perceptions of HVPL benefits and risks, relying on recent original survey data containing individual responses from 420 anonymous community leaders and key local policy-makers in the state of Arkansas. Building upon previous research rooted in the dual process model of risk judgment and appraisal tendency framework, a particular emphasis is given to identifying the triadic relationship between culturally biased value predispositions, specific emotional dimensions of affect heuristics, and perceptions pertaining to various aspects of HVPL risks and benefits. Through the implementation of the causal mediation analysis, we found that the effect of cultural value predispositions (i.e. egalitarianism, individualism, hierarchism, and fatalism) on perceived benefits and risks associated with HPVL installation among policy elites is partially mediated by specific affective feelings (i.e. fear, anger, happiness, and excitement) in very distinct ways. We conclude this paper by suggesting that a more robust understanding of the cognitive mechanism of benefit–risk perceptions, particularly those of individuals with more opportunities and resources to shape related policies, promises valuable insight for the development of more effective risk communications and better policy-making practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has recently become a very intensely debated process for extracting oil and gas. Supporters argue that fracking provides positive economic benefits and energy security and offers a decreased reliance on coal‐based electricity generation. Detractors claim that the fracking process may harm the environment as well as place a strain on local communities that experience new fracking operations. This study utilizes a recently conducted survey distributed to a sample of policy elites and the general public in Arkansas and Oregon to examine the role of cultural value predispositions and trust in shaping the perceptions of risks and benefits associated with fracking. Findings indicate that cultural values influence both trust and benefit‐risk perceptions of fracking for both policy elites and the general public. More specifically, we found that trust in information from various sources is derived from the intrinsic values held by an individual, which in turn impacts perceptions of related benefits and risks. We also found that while the overall pattern of relationships is similar, trust plays a larger role in the formulation of attitudes for policy elites than for the general public. We discuss the implications of the mediating role of trust in understanding value‐driven benefit‐risk perceptions, as well as the disparate role of trust between policy elites and the general public in the context of the policy‐making process for both theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent growth in unconventional oil and gas development is controversial, fueling an ongoing U.S. policy debate. Central to these discussions is hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a well‐stimulation technique that has become synonymous with unconventional oil and gas extraction methods. This research applies the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to explore how culturally nuanced narratives shape individuals' policy preferences toward fracking regulations. A census‐balanced internet panel from Oregon and Arkansas (n = 1,145) is used to conduct a survey experiment where participants are randomly assigned to four groups and exposed to information regarding fracking practices. The control group receives a baseline fact list while three treatment groups are exposed to one of three culturally distinct narratives: an egalitarian narrative, a hierarch narrative, or an individualist narrative. Applying ANOVA and causal mediation analysis to this experimental data, we show that while there is no direct effect of narrative treatments on the formation of individuals' fracking policy preferences, culturally nuanced narratives do influence attitudes on fracking policies indirectly through their effects on individuals' reactions towards villain characters presented in the narratives. These findings describe a more complex cognitive interplay between narrative communication and policy preference formation than depicted in extant NPF scholarship, thereby challenging commonly held NPF assertions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate over an installation of high-voltage power lines (HVPLs) has been intense, particularly in northwest Arkansas. Detractors claim that the installation will negatively affect both the natural environment and the local economy, which contains a large tourism component. By contrast, those in favor of installing HVPLs claim that the installation is necessary in order to reliably support the increasing demand for electric power. Using original data collected from a recent statewide Internet survey of 420 local policy elites in Arkansas, this article focuses on two key aspects. First, we examine how local policy elites' perceptions of risks versus benefits of HVPL installation in their communities are influenced by their levels of trust toward information provided by various sources (e.g., energy industry, environmental groups, and government). Second, we utilize cultural theory to explain how the cultural worldviews of policy elites--specifically, egalitarianism, individualism, hierarchism, and fatalism--shape these levels of trust and HVPL benefit-risk perceptions, while controlling for other factors claimed by previous literature, including levels of knowledge on energy-related issues and demographic characteristics. In general, our analysis indicates that policy elites' value-oriented formation of HVPL benefit-risk perceptions is partially due to the influence cultural values have on trust in information sources. We conclude this article by discussing broader implications for the origin and role of trust in policy elites' decisions throughout the policy-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, a controversial policy debate has arisen concerning the installation of high-voltage power lines in northwest Arkansas. While proponents argue that such an installation is inevitable to efficiently and reliably support the identified electric load in the region, opponents claim that the lines will degrade the natural environment and hamper the tourism-based local economy in affected regions, notably in Ozark Mountain areas. Of particular interest is to understand how local policy elites perceive the benefits and risks associated with such divisive proposals, which is critical for comprehending the formation and changes of related government policies. Based upon the dual process theory of judgment, this study systematically investigates the triadic relationships between (a) more profound personal value predispositions, (b) affects and feelings, and (c) perceived benefits and risks related to the proposed installation of high-voltage power lines among local policy elites in the state of Arkansas. In doing so, we analyze original data collected from a statewide Internet survey of 420 local leaders and key policymakers about their opinions on the related issues, while considering other factors claimed by previous literature to influence risk perceptions, including trust, knowledge level, and demographic characteristics. Analytical results suggest that grid-group cultural predispositions, as deeply held core values within local policy elites' individual belief systems, both directly and indirectly-through affective feelings-shape perceived utility associated with the installation of high-voltage power lines. We conclude this article by suggesting some practical considerations for better designing policy addressing controversial issues of this nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the face of the reemerging threat of preventable diseases and the simultaneous vaccine risk controversy, what explains variations in Americans' policy preferences regarding childhood vaccinations? Using original data from a recent nationwide Internet survey of 1,213 American adults, this research seeks to explain differing public opinions on childhood vaccination policies and related issues of governance. As Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid-group cultural theory of policy preference formation suggests, cultural biases have a significant impact on the formation of preferences toward various vaccination policies. Hierarchs are in support of mandatory vaccination, oppose religious and philosophical exemption, and believe the government should preside over vaccination-related decisions. Fatalists strike a bold contrast in their opposition to mandatory vaccination policy and support for religious and philosophical exemptions and the role of parents in deciding on vaccinations. Falling between hierarchs and fatalists, egalitarian support for vaccinations is stronger than individualists'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2006, Adam J. Berinsky and Donald R. Kinder published findings in the Journal of Politics that demonstrated that framing news as a story influences how individuals cognitively organize concepts and information. The study presented here moves forward in this tradition. This research combines samples obtained in the springs of 2009 and 2010 while conducting online experiments. In these experiments, slightly over 2,000 respondents are asked to organize concepts presented in one of three culturally nuanced stories about climate change or where information is presented as a list. Hierarchical cluster analysis indicates that when respondents are exposed to culturally congruent stories, respondent organizational patterns are more likely to mirror the story. We discuss the implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the face of a growing public health concern accompanying the reemerging threat of preventable diseases, this research seeks mainly to explain variations in the perceived benefits and risks of vaccinations among the general public in the United States. As Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid-group cultural theory of risk perception claims, the analytical results based upon original data from a nationwide Internet survey of 1,213 American adults conducted in 2010 suggest that individuals' cultural predispositions contribute to the formation of their perceptions pertaining to vaccine benefits and risks at both societal and individual levels, in conjunction with other factors suggested by previous risk perception literature, such as perceived prevalence of diseases, trust, knowledge level, and demographic characteristics. Those with a strong hierarch orientation tend to envision greater benefits and lesser risks and conceive of a relatively high ratio of benefit to risk when compared to other cultural types. By contrast, those with a strong fatalist tendency are inclined to emphasize risks and downplay benefits while conceiving of a low vaccination benefit-risk ratio. Situated between hierarchs and fatalists, strong egalitarians are prone to perceive greater benefits, smaller risks, and a more positive benefit-risk ratio than strong individualists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]