IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i6p1212-1225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Risk Information Seeking and Processing during an Infectious Disease Outbreak: The Case of Zika Virus

Author

Listed:
  • Austin Y. Hubner
  • Shelly R. Hovick

Abstract

This study draws on the Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM) to assess Zika virus information seeking and systematic processing, paying particular attention to the relationship between perceived knowledge and knowledge insufficiency. Novel risks, such as Zika, provide an interesting context for examining whether information‐seeking models, such as PRISM, are able to predict information seeking when available information is limited or scarce. A cross‐sectional, online study of men and women of childbearing age (N = 494) residing in the state of Florida was conducted. Our results provide some support for the PRISM for predicting Zika information seeking intention, as well as systematic processing of information. We also found that individuals with high levels of perceived knowledge were more likely to report high level of knowledge insufficiency, illustrating that contextual factors may impact the fit of risk information seeking models.

Suggested Citation

  • Austin Y. Hubner & Shelly R. Hovick, 2020. "Understanding Risk Information Seeking and Processing during an Infectious Disease Outbreak: The Case of Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1212-1225, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:1212-1225
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13456
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13456?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. Kate Holland & R. Warwick Blood & Michelle Imison & Simon Chapman & Andrea Fogarty, 2012. "Risk, expert uncertainty, and Australian news media: public and private faces of expert opinion during the 2009 swine flu pandemic," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 657-671, June.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    4. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    5. Ortwin Renn, 2011. "The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application to climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 154-169, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Kolotylo-Kulkarni, Malgorzata & Marakas, George M. & Xia, Weidong, 2024. "Understanding protective behavior and vaccination adoption among US individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Daniela Costa & Nuno Fernandes & Joana Arantes & José Keating, 2022. "A dual-process approach to prosocial behavior under COVID-19 uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Seung-Kyoung Yang & Minji Kim, 2022. "Factors Influencing Preventive Behavior of COVID-19 among Nursing Students in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Rui He & Yungeng Li, 2021. "Media Exposure, Cancer Beliefs, and Cancer-Related Information-Seeking or Avoidance Behavior Patterns in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 2020. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2067-2086, October.
    3. Brigitta Plasek & Zoltán Lakner & Katalin Badak-Kerti & Anikó Kovács & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Perceived Consequences: General or Specific? The Case of Palm Oil-Free Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Annetta Burger & Talha Oz & William G. Kennedy & Andrew T. Crooks, 2019. "Computational Social Science of Disasters: Opportunities and Challenges," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-31, April.
    8. Jia Shi & Xiangnan Hu & Xuesong Guo & Cuihong Lian, 2020. "Risk Information Seeking Behavior in Disaster Resettlement: A Case Study of Ankang City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Ricci, Elena Claire & Banterle, Alessandro, 2020. "Do major climate change-related public events have an impact on consumer choices?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    11. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    13. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    14. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    15. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    16. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    18. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    19. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    20. Jacqueline Ruth & Steffen Willwacher & Oliver Korn, 2022. "Acceptance of Digital Sports: A Study Showing the Rising Acceptance of Digital Health Activities Due to the SARS-CoV-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, January.

    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:40:y:2020:i:6:p:1212-1225. 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.