Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks.
Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.578562
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
O'Connor RE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bostrom A;Böhm G;Hayes AL;O'Connor RE
此前的研究表明，大流行性冠状病毒推动了风险认知的所有“热点”，但政府和民众的反应各不相同。随着疫情对经济的影响变得显著，各国政府已开始削减用于减轻其他全球风险（包括气候变化）的预算，这可能会增加这些风险的未来成本。风险分析师长期以来一直认为，全球环境和健康风险在某种程度上是不可分割的，最终必须进行系统管理，以有效提高安全和福利。与此相反，有人提出，我们有令人担忧的预算，其中一个风险挤出另一个风险。“在野外”，我们解决问题的策略通常是字典式的;我们一次寻找和评估一个潜在的解决方案，甚至一次一个属性，而不是进行综合风险评估。在美国的一项全国性调查实验中，参与者被随机分配到冠状病毒或气候变化调查（N = 3203），我们评估了风险认知，以及风险认知“热点”是否在这些全球风险内部和之间推动政策偏好。两者之间有着惊人的相似之处。这两种风险都被认为具有高度威胁性，分布不公平，而且不是特别可控。人们认为自己对这两种风险都有所了解，并对这两种风险都有道德上的担忧。相比之下，气候变化被认为比大流行性冠状病毒更容易被科学理解。此外，个人认为他们可以为减缓或阻止冠状病毒大流行做出比气候变化更大的贡献，并且有更大的道德责任这样做。调查任务影响政策偏好，在大流行冠状病毒调查中，对控制大流行冠状病毒政策的支持率更高，在气候变化调查中，对控制气候变化风险政策的支持率更高。在所有调查、年龄组和控制气候变化或冠状病毒大流行风险的政策中，支持资助大流行性疾病疫苗研究的比例最高，这是唯一在两项调查中都获得多数支持的政策。研究结果支持有限担心预算假设和假设，支持者的政策，以应对一个威胁不成比例地可能也支持政策，以应对其他威胁。
Prior research suggests that the pandemic coronavirus pushes all the “hot spots” for risk perceptions, yet both governments and populations have varied in their responses. As the economic impacts of the pandemic have become salient, governments have begun to slash their budgets for mitigating other global risks, including climate change, likely imposing increased future costs from those risks. Risk analysts have long argued that global environmental and health risks are inseparable at some level, and must ultimately be managed systemically, to effectively increase safety and welfare. In contrast, it has been suggested that we have worry budgets, in which one risk crowds out another. “In the wild,” our problem-solving strategies are often lexicographic; we seek and assess potential solutions one at a time, even one attribute at a time, rather than conducting integrated risk assessments. In a U.S. national survey experiment in which participants were randomly assigned to coronavirus or climate change surveys (N = 3203) we assess risk perceptions, and whether risk perception “hot spots” are driving policy preferences, within and across these global risks. Striking parallels emerge between the two. Both risks are perceived as highly threatening, inequitably distributed, and not particularly controllable. People see themselves as somewhat informed about both risks and have moral concerns about both. In contrast, climate change is seen as better understood by science than is pandemic coronavirus. Further, individuals think they can contribute more to slowing or stopping pandemic coronavirus than climate change, and have a greater moral responsibility to do so. Survey assignment influences policy preferences, with higher support for policies to control pandemic coronavirus in pandemic coronavirus surveys, and higher support for policies to control climate change risks in climate change surveys. Across all surveys, age groups, and policies to control either climate change or pandemic coronavirus risks, support is highest for funding research on vaccines against pandemic diseases, which is the only policy that achieves majority support in both surveys. Findings bolster both the finite worry budget hypothesis and the hypothesis that supporters of policies to confront one threat are disproportionately likely also to support policies to confront the other threat.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012
发表时间：
2012-02-01
影响因子：
8.9
作者：
Bostrom, Ann;O'Connor, Robert E.;Saelensminde, Ingrid
通讯作者：
Saelensminde, Ingrid
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Bostrom, Ann;Hayes, Adam L.;Crosman, Katherine M.
通讯作者：
Crosman, Katherine M.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Santoso, Lie Philip;Stein, Robert;Stevenson, Randy
通讯作者：
Stevenson, Randy
影响因子：
56.9
作者：
SLOVIC, P
通讯作者：
SLOVIC, P
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Doran, Rouven;Bohm, Gisela;Pidgeon, Nick
通讯作者：
Pidgeon, Nick