RAPID: Assessing the Variance, Effects, and Sources of Aversion to Zika Solutions

寨卡病毒是继埃博拉病毒之后不久出现的又一种可怕的新发传染病，这引发了人们希望如何管理一种新的、具有威胁性的危险的问题，考虑到寨卡病毒感染与小头畸形症和怀孕的联系，它通过蚊子和性交传播，以及气候变化可能在将蚊子媒介的传播范围扩大到美国南部各州之外所起的作用。风险认知的文化认知分析中提出的“解决方案厌恶”假说表明，当提出的解决方案威胁到核心价值(例如，对自由市场的支持)时，人们将通过否认或淡化问题的严重性来回应(即，风险感知是解决方案评估的函数)。寨卡病毒提供了如此多样化的潜在解决方案，我们可以探索不同解决方案在人内部和人与人之间的反应。例如，保守派可能会被涉及避孕、堕胎或缓解气候变化的解决方案冒犯；自由派可能会被涉及旅行或移民限制、大规模喷洒杀虫剂或独身的解决方案冒犯；这两个群体可能都会被蚊子的基因改造冒犯。通过评估此类反应随时间的动态变化，该项目增进了对解决方案评估在风险感知和风险管理偏好方面的作用的知识，这既适用于传染病管理，也适用于更广泛的危害。该项目促进科学进步，以了解公众对危险管理的偏好，以及价值观、大众和社交媒体在这些判断中的作用；通过向公共卫生界通报公众对拟议政策的潜在反应来促进国民健康；并支持研究生的教育。更广泛的影响包括向风险管理人员展示公众对寨卡病毒替代解决方案的反应如何影响对这一特定危险以及其他危险情况下类似解决方案的各种管理选择和风险沟通战略的可接受性。该项目使用三波纵向调查，在此之前对解决方案属性进行预试，以测试解决方案观点是否以及如何随着时间的推移而改变，价值观和影响相对于其他更具认知性的因素在解决方案观点中的作用，不同类型的价值观和价值清单在风险认知中的相对作用，使用来自不同国家在线小组的随机样本。第一波衡量不同的价值观和清单(文化认知、全球价值观、道德基础)以及非寨卡病毒风险认知和人口变量；第二波衡量与寨卡病毒相关的观点(风险认知；大众和社交媒体使用；解决方案)，第三波大约6个月后也是如此。同时对大众和社交媒体上的寨卡病毒报道进行分析，可以测试这些媒体上的解决方案报道与关注这些特定媒体的人的解决方案偏好之间的关联，以及其他好处。该项目的智力价值包括测试和扩展“解决方案厌恶”假设，以评估它是否1)只适用于有争议的危险或解决方案；2)总是影响对问题的感知；3)只受价值观、情感、认知评估(例如，有效性或可用性)或其他因素的影响；以及4)与某些价值观比其他价值观更相关。价值衡量的比较还允许首次测试这些评估价值对风险观点的影响的不同方法的相对适当性。对解决方案的大众和社交媒体报道与个人之间的关联进行特定于网点的测试(例如，特定的电视频道或标签)？对这些解决方案的偏好和属性判断，是促进对媒体议程设置和风险的社会放大的理解的另一项创新。

The emergence of Zika as yet another dread emergent infectious disease, soon after Ebola, raises the question of how people want a novel and threatening hazard to be managed, considering the link of Zika virus infection with microcephaly and pregnancy, its transmission via both mosquitoes and sexual intercourse, and the likely role of climate change in extending mosquito vectors' range beyond southern U.S. states. The "solution aversion" hypothesis, prefigured in cultural cognition analyses of risk perceptions, suggests that when proposed solutions threaten central values (e.g., support for free markets), people will respond by denying or downplaying the magnitude of the problem (i.e., risk perception is a function of solution evaluation). The Zika case offers such diverse potential solutions that we can probe how reactions vary across solutions within and across people. For example, conservatives might be offended by solutions involving contraception, abortion, or climate change mitigation; liberals might be offended by solutions involving travel or immigration restrictions, large-scale pesticide spraying, or celibacy; both groups might be offended by genetic modification of mosquitoes. By assessing dynamics of such responses over time, the project advances knowledge of the role of solution evaluation in both risk perception and hazard management preferences, both for infectious-disease management and for hazards more generally. This project promotes progress of science in understanding public preferences for hazard management, and the role of values, and mass and social media, in those judgments; advances national health by informing the public health community about potential public reactions to proposed policies; and supports the education of graduate students. Broader impacts include showing hazard managers how public reactions to alternative solutions to Zika could affect the acceptability of varied management options and risk communication strategies, both for this specific hazard and for similar solutions in other hazard contexts. The project uses a three-wave longitudinal survey, preceded by a pretest of solution attributes, to test whether and how solution views change over time, the role of values and affect relative to other more cognitive factors in solution views, the relative role of different kinds of values and value inventories in risk perception, using a random sample from a diverse national online panel. Wave 1 measures different values and inventories (cultural cognition, global values, moral foundations) as well as non-Zika risk perceptions and demographic variables; Wave 2 measures Zika-relevant views (risk perception; mass and social media use; solutions), as does Wave 3 about 6 months later. A concurrent analysis of Zika coverage in mass and social media allows testing of associations between solution coverage in those media and solution preferences among the people who follow those specific media, among other benefits. The intellectual merit of the project includes its testing and extension of the "solution aversion" hypothesis to assess whether it 1) applies only to controversial hazards or solutions; 2) always affects perceptions of the problem; 3) is shaped only by values, versus affect, cognitive appraisals (e.g., efficacy or availability), or other factors; and 4) is more associated with some values than others. Comparison of value measures also allows first-ever testing of the relative appropriateness of these different approaches to assessing the effects of values on risk views. The outlet-specific (e.g., a particular TV channel or hashtag) testing of associations between mass and social media coverage of solutions, and individuals? preferences and attribute judgments for those solutions, is another innovation that advances understanding of media agenda-setting and social amplification of risk.