Collaborative Research: Testing Cognitive and Affective Interventions to Improve Public Understanding and Affective Reactions to Pandemic Risks

在考虑传染病并决定如何保护自己时，人们往往对感染风险较低的传染病（如埃博拉）反应过度，而在其他时候对感染风险较高的传染病（如流感）反应不足。这两种类型的反应都可能导致负面结果，如压力和焦虑，工作效率降低，以及医疗资源的低效使用（根据疾病使用太多或太少）。我们认为，人们可能对传染病表现出这些反应的一个原因是，他们对风险的信念和对风险的感受之间可能存在冲突。这项研究将检查对埃博拉、流感和中东呼吸综合征这三种传染病的错误信息和情绪反应。在确定了错误信息和对这三种疾病的过度或压抑的情绪反应的关键领域之后，研究小组开发并测试了一些沟通策略，这些策略可以最好地纠正错误信息，解决信念和风险感受之间的冲突，从而激发对传染病更适当的反应。在确定哪些策略比其他策略更擅长做这些事情之后，研究小组创建了一个网站，展示传染病交流的“最佳实践”。这项研究包括进行一系列网络研究，以调查何时以及对谁来说，基于认知和情感的沟通策略在改变对大流行风险的认知、影响和行为意图方面最有效。该研究采用了“风险即感觉”理论。这些研究将在许多方面推进我们对风险即感觉的理解。首先，研究小组检查了同时矛盾反应（SCRs）的频率——当信念和风险感觉发生冲突时——至少在这三种传染病中。其次，研究小组对同时存在的矛盾情感反应进行了测试。第三，研究小组随后评估了认知和情感信息来源对认知、情感反应和行为意图的相对影响，以及对scr可能解决方案的影响。第四，应用风险感受来确定关于这些传染病的最佳沟通策略，应该作为将风险感受纳入健康行为和沟通的公共卫生理论的效用的测试案例。第五，由于其建立在风险即感觉理论的基础上，从当前研究中收集到的见解应该有助于塑造关于这些疾病以外的其他公共卫生问题的信息交流方式。最后，该研究测试了解决scr是诱导对大流行风险作出适当反应的关键，还是提高知识、承认恐惧和/或改善效能感足以改善反应，正如公共卫生标准健康行为理论所预测的那样。

When thinking about infectious diseases and making decisions about how to protect themselves, people often overreact to infectious diseases with low risk of infection, such as Ebola, and at other times fail to respond to infectious diseases with higher risk of infection, such as the flu. Both types of responses can lead to negative outcomes such as stress and anxiety, less productivity at work, and inefficient use of healthcare resources (either using too much or too little depending on the disease). We think that one reason that people may exhibit these responses to infectious diseases is that there may be a conflict between their beliefs about their risk and their feelings about their risk. This research will examine areas of misinformation and emotional responses to three infectious diseases: Ebola, the flu, and MERS. After identifying key areas of misinformation and excessive or subdued emotional responses to these three diseases, the research team develops and tests a number of communication strategies that best correct misinformation and resolve conflicts between beliefs and feelings of risk to motivate more appropriate responses to infectious diseases. After determining which strategies are better at doing those things than others, the research team creates a website to display "best-practices" in communicating about infectious diseases. This research involves conducting a number of web studies to investigate when and for whom cognitive- and affective-based communication strategies work best at modifying cognitions, affect, and behavioral intentions towards pandemic risks. The research uses the theory of "risk-as-feelings". These studies will advance our understanding of risk-as-feelings in a number of ways. First, the research team examines the frequency of simultaneous contradictory responses (SCRs) - when beliefs and feelings of risk conflict - at least with these three infectious diseases. Second, the research team tests for the existence of simultaneous contradictory affective responses. Third, the team then assesses the relative influence of cognitive and affective sources of information on cognitions, affective reactions, and behavioral intentions, as well as in the possible resolution of SCRs. Fourth, the application of risk-as-feelings to determine optimal communication strategies about these infectious diseases should serve as a test-case for the utility of incorporating risk-as-feelings into public health theories of health behavior and communication. Fifth, due to its foundation in the theory of risk-as-feelings, insights gleaned from the current studies should help shape the way information is communicated about other public health issues beyond these disease. And finally, the research tests whether resolving SCRs is key to inducing appropriate responses to pandemic risks or whether improving knowledge, acknowledging fears, and/or improving feelings of efficacy, is sufficient to improve responses, as would be predicted by standard health behavior theories from public health.