IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i8p1708-1722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Risk? Why Did the U.S. Public Ignore Information About the Ebola Outbreak?

Author

Listed:
  • Janet Z. Yang

Abstract

To test a possible boundary condition for the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model, this study experimentally manipulates risk perception related to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in a nationally representative sample. Multiple‐group structural equation modeling results indicate that psychological distance was negatively related to systematic processing in the high‐risk condition. In the low‐risk condition, psychological distance was positively related to heuristic processing; negative attitude toward media coverage dampened people's need for information, which subsequently influenced information processing. Risk perception elicited more fear, which led to greater information insufficiency and more heuristic processing in the low‐risk condition. In contrast, sadness was consistently related to information processing in both conditions. Model fit statistics also show that the RISP model provides a better fit to data when risk perception is elevated. Further, this study contributes to our understanding of the role of discrete emotions in motivating information processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Janet Z. Yang, 2019. "Whose Risk? Why Did the U.S. Public Ignore Information About the Ebola Outbreak?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1708-1722, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1708-1722
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13282
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13282?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. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    2. LeeAnn Kahlor & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin & Kurt Neuwirth & James Giese, 2003. "Studying Heuristic‐Systematic Processing of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 355-368, April.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    5. Shelly Hovick & Vicki S. Freimuth & Ashani Johnson‐Turbes & Doryn D. Chervin, 2011. "Multiple Health Risk Perception and Information Processing Among African Americans and Whites Living in Poverty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1789-1799, November.
    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. Tiedens, Larissa Z. & Linton, Susan, 2001. "Judgment under Emotional Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions and Their Associated Certainty Appraisals on Information Processing," Research Papers 1629, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    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. 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. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    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. Weidan Cao & Qinghua Yang & Xinyao Zhang, 2023. "Understanding Information Processing and Protective Behaviors during the Pandemic: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    5. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    6. Quan Gao & Hye Eun Lee, 2021. "How Framed Messages Influence Depression Assessment Intentions: Interactivity of Social Media as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    8. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    9. Shu-Chu Sarrina Li & Shih-Yu Lo & Tai-Yee Wu & Te-Lin Chen, 2022. "Information Seeking and Processing during the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Taiwan: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Informational Subjective Norms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Pinar, Candas & Almeling, Rene & Gadarian, Shana Kushner, 2018. "Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 62-68.
    11. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    12. Sixiao Liu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Incorporating Message Framing into Narrative Persuasion to Curb E‐Cigarette Use Among College Students," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1677-1690, August.
    13. Jay D. Hmielowski & Meredith Y. Wang & Rebecca R. Donaway, 2018. "Expanding the Political Philosophy Dimension of the RISP Model: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects of Cultural Cognition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1891-1903, September.
    14. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    15. Ghanian, Mansour & M. Ghoochani, Omid & Dehghanpour, Mojtaba & Taqipour, Milad & Taheri, Fatemeh & Cotton, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding farmers’ climate adaptation intention in Iran: A protection-motivation extended model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Sedighe Pakmehr & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoud Baradaran, 2021. "Explaining farmers’ response to climate change-induced water stress through cognitive theory of stress: an Iranian perspective," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5776-5793, April.
    17. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Therese Bonnici & Marie Briguglio & Glen William Spiteri, 2023. "Humor Helps: An Experimental Analysis of Pro-Environmental Social Media Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Catherine Graves & Katy Roelich, 2021. "Psychological Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change: A Review of Meat Consumption Behaviours," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.

    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:8:p:1708-1722. 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.