skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Reliability but not bias: Developing a scale to measure preferred channels for risk information during the COVID pandemic
Title: Reliability but not bias: Developing a scale to measure preferred channels for risk information during the COVID pandemic
Abstract To develop a new measure of preferred sources for risk information, two studies asked respondents to indicate what channels they were reliant on for information about COVID‐19, from 25 news channels ranging across the political spectrum. Unexpectedly, dependencies clustered around level of reliability rather than the political orientation of the news channel. In other words, each cluster included media channels from both the left and right side of the political spectrum, while dependencies clustered into sources that varied by the degree to which their content is reliable. Participants who turned to lower reliability channels indicated lower risk perceptions, less accurate probability estimations, reduced vaccination intentions, and lower protective behavioral intentions. Those inclined to use higher reliability channels indicated higher risk perceptions, more accurate probability estimations, increased vaccination intentions, and higher protective behavioral intentions. These relationships are discussed in terms of implications for our understanding of source reliance and risk perception, information sufficiency, and implications for both future research and public health interventions.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2029258
PAR ID:
10419690
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley-Blackwell
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Risk Analysis
Volume:
43
Issue:
7
ISSN:
0272-4332
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 1329-1338
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Health Security)
    null (Ed.)
    The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created substantial challenges for public health officials who must communicate pandemic-related risks and recommendations to the public. Their efforts have been further hampered by the politicization of the pandemic, including media outlets that question the seriousness and necessity of protective actions. The availability of highly politicized news from online platforms has led to concerns about the notion of ‘‘echo chambers,’’ whereby users are exposed only to information that conforms to and reinforces their existing beliefs. Using a sample of 5,000 US residents, we explored their information-seeking tendencies, reliance on conservative and liberal online media, risk perceptions, and mitigation behaviors. The results of our study suggest that risk perceptions may vary across preferences for conservative or liberal bias; however, our results do not support differences in the mitigation behavior across patterns of media use. Further, our findings do not support the notion of echo chambers, but rather suggest that people with lower information-seeking behavior may be more strongly influenced by politicized COVID-19 news. Risk estimates converge at higher levels of information seeking, suggesting that high information seekers consume news from sources across the political spectrum. These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for the study of online echo chambers and their practical implications for public health officials and emergency managers. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal)
    null (Ed.)
    Understanding human responses to pandemics can improve public health. A survey of US residents (n = 2004) February 28, 2020, very early in the coronavirus pandemic, tested predictors of five “protective” actions: washing hands, wearing masks, avoiding travel, avoiding large public gatherings, and avoiding Asians (given COVID-19’s first appearance in China). We added to the Protective Action Decision Model—positing threat, protective action, and stakeholder perceptions as immediate predictors of intentions—objective and subjective coronavirus knowledge as predictors of these perceptions, and psychological distance to predict threat perceptions. We presumed objective and subjective knowledge were affected by following US and China news about COVID-19. Structural equation modeling indicated adequate fit for this parsimonious model; variance explained in behavioral intentions ranged from .12 (handwashing) to .33 (Asians). Behavioral intentions rose with higher threat, action, and stakeholder (trust) perceptions, psychological distance reduced threat perceptions, objective knowledge reduced threat and action perceptions but increased trust, and subjective knowledge did the opposite. Coronavirus-news following increased both objective and subjective knowledge, but subjective knowledge exhibited stronger associations and US news dominated China news. Moderate model fit and variance explained might reflect model parsimony and/or data collection when US cases were in the low double digits. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, Health, Risk & Society)
    The Affect Heuristic-Cultural Cognition Theory (AH-CCT) model and the Solution Aversion-based (SA) model both suggest affect, meaning feelings or discrete emotions about a target, mediates associations between ‘culture,’ such as political ideology or cultural biases, and risk responses, such as risk perceptions, protective behaviours, and supportive attitudes towards protective policy. However, the models differ respectively by defining negative affect as directed towards the hazard (‘hazard affect’) or a specific behaviour or policy response (‘solution aversion,’ negative affect about a proposed risk reduction method). We compare these models with longitudinal mediation analysis of U.S. COVID-19 survey data (n = 866 in smallest-sample wave). Solution aversion accounted for more associations of culture with risk perceptions, such as personal risk, collective risk, and risk severity; behaviour and behavioural intentions, regarding mask wearing, avoiding large public gatherings, and vaccination; and support for risk mitigation policies, regarding mask mandates, public gathering bans, and vaccination mandates. Statistically significant direct effects were rare and were mainly for egalitarian cultural bias; indirect effects occurred for egalitarians, political conservatives, and individualists. Implications for further research on risk responses are discussed relative to limited previous work on these affect-mediation models. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, Social Science & Medicine)
    Two decades ago a research team clarified that cross-sectional associations of risk perceptions and protective behavior can only test an “accuracy” hypothesis: e.g., people with higher risk perceptions at Ti should also exhibit low protective behavior and/or high risky behavior at Ti. They argued that these associations are too often interpreted wrongly as testing two other hypotheses, only testable longitudinally: the “behavioral motivation” hypothesis, that high risk perception at Ti increases protective behavior at Ti+1, and the “risk reappraisal” hypothesis, that protective behavior at Ti reduces risk perception at Ti+1. Further, this team argued that risk perception measures should be conditional (e.g., personal risk perception if one’s behavior does not change). Yet these theses have garnered relatively little empirical testing. An online longitudinal panel study of U.S. residents’ COVID-19 views across six survey waves over 14 months in 2020–2021 tested these hypotheses for six behaviors (hand washing, mask wearing, avoiding travel to infected areas, avoiding large public gatherings, vaccination, and [for five waves] social isolation at home). Accuracy and behavioral motivation hypotheses were supported for both behaviors and intentions, excluding a few waves (particularly in February–April 2020, when the pandemic was new in the U.S.) and behaviors. The risk reappraisal hypothesis was contradicted—protective behavior at one wave increased risk perception later—perhaps reflecting continuing uncertainty about efficacy of COVID-19 protective behaviors and/or that dynamic infectious diseases may yield different patterns than chronic diseases dominating such hypothesis-testing. These findings raise intriguing questions for both perception- behavior theory and behavior change practice. 
    more » « less
  5. ; (, Journal of Risk Research)
    Although early concepts of risk perception measures distinguished cognitive from affective items, until recently multi-dimensional taxonomies were absent from risk perception studies, and even more from tests of their association with behavior or policy support. Six longitudinal panel surveys on U.S. COVID-19 views (n = 2004 February 2020, ending April 2021) allowed testing of these relationships among ≤ 10 risk perception items measured in each wave. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed consistent distinctions between personal (conditioning perceived risk on taking further or no further protective action), collective (U.S., global), affective (concern, dread), and severity (estimates of eventual total U.S. infections and deaths) measures, while affect (good-bad feelings) and duration (how long people expect the outbreak to last) did not fit with their assumed affective and severity (respectively) parallels. Collective and affective/affect risk perceptions most strongly predicted both behavioral intentions and policy support for mask wearing, avoidance of large public gatherings, and vaccination, controlling for personal risk perception (which might be partly reflected in the affective/affect effects) and other measures. These findings underline the importance of multi-dimensionality (e.g. not just asking about personal risk perceptions) in designing risk perception research, even when trying to explain personal protective actions. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email