IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i1p71-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Understanding of Ebola Risks: Mastering an Unfamiliar Threat

Author

Listed:
  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi
  • Dana Rose Garfin
  • E. Alison Holman
  • Roxane Cohen Silver

Abstract

Ebola was the most widely followed news story in the United States in October 2014. Here, we ask what members of the U.S. public learned about the disease, given the often chaotic media environment. Early in 2015, we surveyed a representative sample of 3,447 U.S. residents about their Ebola‐related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Where possible, we elicited judgments in terms sufficiently precise to allow comparing them to scientific estimates (e.g., the death toll to date and the probability of dying once ill). Respondents’ judgments were generally consistent with one another, with scientific knowledge, and with their self‐reported behavioral responses and policy preferences. Thus, by the time the threat appeared to have subsided in the United States, members of the public, as a whole, had seemingly mastered its basic contours. Moreover, they could express their beliefs in quantitative terms. Judgments of personal risk were weakly and inconsistently related to reported gender, age, education, income, or political ideology. Better educated and wealthier respondents saw population risks as lower; females saw them as higher. More politically conservative respondents saw Ebola as more transmissible and expressed less support for public health policies. In general, respondents supported providing “honest, accurate information, even if that information worried people.” These results suggest the value of proactive communications designed to inform the lay public's decisions, thoughts, and emotions, and informed by concurrent surveys of their responses and needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Baruch Fischhoff & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Dana Rose Garfin & E. Alison Holman & Roxane Cohen Silver, 2018. "Public Understanding of Ebola Risks: Mastering an Unfamiliar Threat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 71-83, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:71-83
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12794
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12794?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 2013. "Response to the Review of ‘Public Policy in an Uncertain World’," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 412-415, August.
    2. Fischhoff, Baruch, 1996. "The Real World: What Good Is It?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 232-248, March.
    3. Hao‐Che Wu & Michael K. Lindell & Carla S. Prater & Charles D. Samuelson, 2014. "Effects of Track and Threat Information on Judgments of Hurricane Strike Probability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1025-1039, June.
    4. Michael D. Hurd & Kathleen McGarry, 1995. "Evaluation of the Subjective Probabilities of Survival in the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30, pages 268-292.
    5. Robin Gregory & Nathan Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Lee Failing & Graham Long & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2071-2083, December.
    6. Z. Janet Yang, 2016. "Altruism During Ebola: Risk Perception, Issue Salience, Cultural Cognition, and Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1079-1089, June.
    7. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    8. Gabriele Prati & Luca Pietrantoni, 2016. "Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Xenophobic Attitudes: Evidence from Italy During the Ebola Outbreak," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2000-2010, October.
    9. Jutel, Annemarie & Banister, Elizabeth, 2013. "“I was pretty sure I had the 'flu”: Qualitative description of confirmed-influenza symptoms," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 49-55.
    10. Manski, Charles F., 2013. "Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674066892, Spring.
    11. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Paul S. Fischbeck & Neil A. Stiber & Baruch Fischhoff, 2002. "What Number is “Fifty‐Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 713-723, August.
    12. Michael D. Hurd & Kathleen McGarry, 2002. "The Predictive Validity of Subjective Probabilities of Survival," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 966-985, October.
    13. Fischhoff, Baruch, 1994. "What forecasts (seem to) mean," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 387-403, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Jamieson & Dakota Caldwell & Barbara Gomez-Aguinaga & Cristián Doña-Reveco, 2021. "Race, Ethnicity, Nativity and Perceptions of Health Risk during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Shan Gao & Ye Zhang & Wenhui Liu, 2021. "How Does Risk-Information Communication Affect the Rebound of Online Public Opinion of Public Emergencies in China?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    4. Elena Druică & Fabio Musso & Rodica Ianole-Călin, 2020. "Optimism Bias during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Romania and Italy," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    2. Joan Costa-Font & Cristina Vilaplana-Prieto, 2022. "Biased survival expectations and behaviours: Does domain specific information matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 285-317, December.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    4. de Bresser, Jochem, 2019. "Measuring Subjective Survival Expectations : Do Response Scales Matter?," Other publications TiSEM 53bc2ec3-4126-4dfb-81f3-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Alberto Palloni & Beatriz Novak, 2016. "Subjective survival expectations and observed survival: How consistent are they?," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 14(1), pages 187-228.
    6. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.
    7. Silvia Balia, 2014. "Survival expectations, subjective health and smoking: evidence from SHARE," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 753-780, September.
    8. de Bresser, Jochem, 2019. "Measuring subjective survival expectations – Do response scales matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 136-156.
    9. Olken, Benjamin A., 2009. "Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 950-964, August.
    10. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2020. "Sampling‐Based versus Design‐Based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 265-296, January.
    11. Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 2018. "How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 232-244, May.
    12. Wu, Shang & Stevens, Ralph & Thorp, Susan, 2015. "Cohort and target age effects on subjective survival probabilities: Implications for models of the retirement phase," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 39-56.
    13. Muller, Seán M., 2021. "The dangers of performative scientism as the alternative to anti-scientific policymaking: A critical, preliminary assessment of South Africa’s Covid-19 response and its consequences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    14. Millimet, Daniel L. & Roy, Jayjit, 2015. "Multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 20-23.
    15. Huhr, Scott & Wulczyn, Fred, 2022. "Do intensive in-home services prevent placement?: A case study of Youth Villages’ Intercept® program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Silvia Balia, 2007. "Reporting expected longevity and smoking: evidence from the SHARE," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 07/10, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. ILes, Richard, 2017. "Government Doctor Absenteeism And Its Effects On Consumer Demand In Rural North India," Working Papers 2018-9, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, revised 12 2018.
    18. Susan Athey & Raj Chetty & Guido Imbens, 2020. "Combining Experimental and Observational Data to Estimate Treatment Effects on Long Term Outcomes," Papers 2006.09676, arXiv.org.
    19. Bruno Arpino & Pierluigi Conzo & Francesco Salustri, 2022. "I am a survivor, keep on surviving: early-life exposure to conflict and subjective survival probabilities in adult life," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 471-517, April.
    20. Cormac O'Dea & David Sturrock, 2019. "Survival pessimism and the demand for annuities," IFS Working Papers W19/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:71-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.