IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i12p2694-2717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Americans’ Views of Voluntary Protective Actions Against Zika Infection: Conceptual and Measurement Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Branden B. Johnson

Abstract

Understanding factors affecting decisions by people to protect themselves, or not, is critical to designing supportive communications. Here, threat, protective‐action, and stakeholder perceptions were evaluated for effects on mainland Americans’ behavioral intentions regarding Zika in April 2017, as postulated by the Protective Action Decision Model. Although all three perception types (including a novel resource sufficiency measure) affected intentions, these relationships varied widely depending upon the method used to measure adoption of actions (e.g., total count of all behaviors adopted vs. behavior‐specific analyses), the behaviors involved, and whether analysis focused on the full sample or only on people who had a reasonable opportunity to enact the behavior or who believed it relevant to their lives. There was a general contrast between mosquito control actions (removal of mosquito breeding areas and pesticide spraying) and travel‐related behaviors (avoiding travel to areas of local transmission of the virus, protecting oneself from mosquito bites after potential exposure, and practicing safe sex after potential exposure). Reported action or inaction during the 2016 mosquito season, and stages of behavior change, were both elicited in January–February 2017; both drove intentions in April 2017 for the upcoming season, although direct and indirect effects varied widely. Collectively these findings present theoretical, measurement, and practical implications for understanding, tracking, and promoting voluntary protective actions against hazards.

Suggested Citation

  • Branden B. Johnson, 2019. "Americans’ Views of Voluntary Protective Actions Against Zika Infection: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2694-2717, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:12:p:2694-2717
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13378
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13378?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. Kurt Neuwirth & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin, 2000. "Protection Motivation and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 721-734, October.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    4. Sheppard, Blair H & Hartwick, Jon & Warshaw, Paul R, 1988. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 325-343, December.
    5. T. Earle & M. Siegrist, 2008. "Trust, Confidence and Cooperation model: a framework for understanding the relation between trust and Risk Perception," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 17-29.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2019. "Hazard avoidance, symbolic and practical: the case of Americans’ reported responses to Ebola," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 346-363, March.
    7. Fei Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Shih-Kai Huang & Michael K. Lindell & Yue (Gurt) Ge & Hung-Lung Wei, 2018. "Public reactions to the 2013 Chinese H7N9 Influenza outbreak: perceptions of risk, stakeholders, and protective actions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(7), pages 809-833, July.
    8. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    9. Chun Yang & James Price Dillard & Ruobing Li, 2018. "Understanding Fear of Zika: Personal, Interpersonal, and Media Influences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2535-2545, December.
    10. Michael K. Lindell & David J. Whitney, 2000. "Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 13-26, February.
    11. Kenneth M. Winneg & Jo Ellen Stryker & Daniel Romer & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 2018. "Differences Between Florida and the Rest of the United States in Response to Local Transmission of the Zika Virus: Implications for Future Communication Campaigns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2546-2560, December.
    12. Robert L. Heath & Jaesub Lee & Michael J. Palenchar & Laura L. Lemon, 2018. "Risk Communication Emergency Response Preparedness: Contextual Assessment of the Protective Action Decision Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 333-344, February.
    13. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    14. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & William J. Burns, 2014. "Evolving Risk Perceptions About Near-Miss Terrorist Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 27-42, March.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    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. Johnson, Branden B. & Kim, Byungdoo, 2023. "Cross-temporal relations of conditional risk perception measures with protective actions against COVID-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    2. 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.

    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. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "How does information affect fire risk reduction behaviors? Mediating effects of cognitive processes and subjective knowledge," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(3), pages 1461-1483, February.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    3. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    4. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    5. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.
    6. Yilin Zou & Alexia Stock & Rachel Davidson & Linda Nozick & Joseph Trainor & Jamie Kruse, 2020. "Perceived attributes of hurricane-related retrofits and their effect on household adoption," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 201-224, October.
    7. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Robert L. Heath & Jaesub Lee & Michael J. Palenchar & Laura L. Lemon, 2018. "Risk Communication Emergency Response Preparedness: Contextual Assessment of the Protective Action Decision Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 333-344, February.
    9. Robby Soetanto & Aaron Mullins & Nebil Achour, 2017. "The perceptions of social responsibility for community resilience to flooding: the impact of past experience, age, gender and ethnicity," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 86(3), pages 1105-1126, April.
    10. Catherine Viot & Caroline Bayart & Agnes Lancini, 2017. "The Consumer Intention to Adopt Smart Connected-Products: Does the Category Matter?," Post-Print hal-01991186, HAL.
    11. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    12. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Maruping, Likoebe M. & Brown, Susan A., 2006. "Role of time in self-prediction of behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 160-176, July.
    13. Borhan, Muhamad Nazri & Ibrahim, Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi & Miskeen, Manssour A. Abdulasalm, 2019. "Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external inf," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-384.
    14. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    15. Liao, Ziqi & Shi, Xinping, 2017. "Web functionality, web content, information security, and online tourism service continuance," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 258-263.
    16. Maria Rodrigues & João F. Proença & Rita Macedo, 2023. "Determinants of the Purchase of Secondhand Products: An Approach by the Theory of Planned Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Robert Konopaske & Chet Robie & John M. Ivancevich, 2009. "Managerial Willingness to Assume Traveling, Short-term and Long-term Global Assignments," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 359-387, June.
    18. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. James Gavin & Madeleine Mcbrearty & William Harvey, 2013. "Involvement in Physical Activity," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, April.
    20. Gansser, Oliver Alexander & Reich, Christina Stefanie, 2021. "A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence with extensions to UTAUT2: An empirical study in three segments of application," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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:39:y:2019:i:12:p:2694-2717. 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.