RAPID: Assessing the Variance, Effects, and Sources of Aversion to Zika Solutions

RAPID：评估对寨卡解决方案的厌恶的方差、影响和来源

基本信息

批准号：
1644853
负责人：
Branden Johnson
金额：
$ 9.5万
依托单位：
Decision Science Research Institute
依托单位国家：
美国
项目类别：
Standard Grant
财政年份：
2016
资助国家：
美国
起止时间：
2016-07-01 至 2018-06-30
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1644853&HistoricalAwards=false
关键词：
RAPID Assessing Variance Effects Sources

项目摘要

The emergence of Zika as yet another dread emergent infectious disease, soon after Ebola, raises the question of how people want a novel and threatening hazard to be managed, considering the link of Zika virus infection with microcephaly and pregnancy, its transmission via both mosquitoes and sexual intercourse, and the likely role of climate change in extending mosquito vectors' range beyond southern U.S. states. The "solution aversion" hypothesis, prefigured in cultural cognition analyses of risk perceptions, suggests that when proposed solutions threaten central values (e.g., support for free markets), people will respond by denying or downplaying the magnitude of the problem (i.e., risk perception is a function of solution evaluation). The Zika case offers such diverse potential solutions that we can probe how reactions vary across solutions within and across people. For example, conservatives might be offended by solutions involving contraception, abortion, or climate change mitigation; liberals might be offended by solutions involving travel or immigration restrictions, large-scale pesticide spraying, or celibacy; both groups might be offended by genetic modification of mosquitoes. By assessing dynamics of such responses over time, the project advances knowledge of the role of solution evaluation in both risk perception and hazard management preferences, both for infectious-disease management and for hazards more generally. This project promotes progress of science in understanding public preferences for hazard management, and the role of values, and mass and social media, in those judgments; advances national health by informing the public health community about potential public reactions to proposed policies; and supports the education of graduate students. Broader impacts include showing hazard managers how public reactions to alternative solutions to Zika could affect the acceptability of varied management options and risk communication strategies, both for this specific hazard and for similar solutions in other hazard contexts. The project uses a three-wave longitudinal survey, preceded by a pretest of solution attributes, to test whether and how solution views change over time, the role of values and affect relative to other more cognitive factors in solution views, the relative role of different kinds of values and value inventories in risk perception, using a random sample from a diverse national online panel. Wave 1 measures different values and inventories (cultural cognition, global values, moral foundations) as well as non-Zika risk perceptions and demographic variables; Wave 2 measures Zika-relevant views (risk perception; mass and social media use; solutions), as does Wave 3 about 6 months later. A concurrent analysis of Zika coverage in mass and social media allows testing of associations between solution coverage in those media and solution preferences among the people who follow those specific media, among other benefits. The intellectual merit of the project includes its testing and extension of the "solution aversion" hypothesis to assess whether it 1) applies only to controversial hazards or solutions; 2) always affects perceptions of the problem; 3) is shaped only by values, versus affect, cognitive appraisals (e.g., efficacy or availability), or other factors; and 4) is more associated with some values than others. Comparison of value measures also allows first-ever testing of the relative appropriateness of these different approaches to assessing the effects of values on risk views. The outlet-specific (e.g., a particular TV channel or hashtag) testing of associations between mass and social media coverage of solutions, and individuals? preferences and attribute judgments for those solutions, is another innovation that advances understanding of media agenda-setting and social amplification of risk.

继埃博拉病毒之后不久，寨卡病毒作为另一种可怕的突发传染病的出现，提出了一个问题：考虑到寨卡病毒感染与小头畸形和怀孕之间的联系，以及通过蚊子和蚊子传播，人们希望如何管理这种新的威胁性危害。性交，以及气候变化在将蚊子媒介的范围扩大到美国南部各州以外的过程中可能发挥的作用。在风险认知的文化认知分析中预示的“解决方案厌恶”假设表明，当提出的解决方案威胁到核心价值观（例如，对自由市场的支持）时，人们会通过否认或淡化问题的严重性（即风险认知）来做出反应。是解评估的函数）。寨卡病毒案例提供了如此多样化的潜在解决方案，我们可以探讨人们内部和不同人之间不同解决方案的反应有何不同。例如，涉及避孕、堕胎或缓解气候变化的解决方案可能会冒犯保守派；自由主义者可能会对涉及旅行或移民限制、大规模杀虫剂喷洒或独身等解决方案感到冒犯；蚊子的基因改造可能会冒犯这两个群体。通过评估此类响应随时间的动态，该项目加深了人们对解决方案评估在风险感知和危害管理偏好方面的作用的了解，无论是对于传染病管理还是更广泛的危害。该项目促进科学进步，了解公众对危害管理的偏好，以及价值观、大众和社交媒体在这些判断中的作用；通过向公共卫生界通报公众对拟议政策的潜在反应，促进国民健康；并支持研究生教育。更广泛的影响包括向危害管理者展示公众对寨卡替代解决方案的反应如何影响各种管理选项和风险沟通策略的可接受性，无论是针对这种特定危害还是针对其他危害情况下的类似解决方案。该项目采用三波纵向调查，然后对解决方案属性进行预测试，以测试解决方案观点是否以及如何随时间变化、价值观的作用以及相对于解决方案观点中其他更多认知因素的影响、不同观点的相对作用。使用来自不同国家在线小组的随机样本，研究风险感知中的各种价值观和价值清单。第一波衡量不同的价值观和库存（文化认知、全球价值观、道德基础）以及非寨卡风险认知和人口变量；第 2 波衡量寨卡相关观点（风险认知；大众和社交媒体使用；解决方案），大约 6 个月后的第 3 波也是如此。对大众媒体和社交媒体中寨卡报道的同时分析可以测试这些媒体中的解决方案覆盖率与关注这些特定媒体的人们的解决方案偏好之间的关联，以及其他好处。该项目的智力价值包括它的测试和“解决方案厌恶”假设的扩展，以评估它是否 1）仅适用于有争议的危险或解决方案； 2）总是影响对问题的看法； 3) 仅由价值观而非情感、认知评估（例如功效或可用性）或其他因素决定； 4) 与某些价值观的相关性高于其他价值观。价值衡量标准的比较还可以首次测试这些不同方法的相对适当性，以评估价值对风险观点的影响。针对特定渠道（例如特定电视频道或主题标签）测试解决方案的大众和社交媒体覆盖范围与个人之间的关联？这些解决方案的偏好和属性判断是另一项创新，可以增进对媒体议程设置和社会风险放大的理解。