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

寨卡病毒作为另一种可怕的突发传染病的出现，在埃博拉病毒之后不久，提出了一个问题，即人们希望如何管理一种新的和具有威胁性的危险，考虑到寨卡病毒感染与小头畸形和怀孕的联系，其通过蚊子和性交传播，以及气候变化在将蚊子传播范围扩大到美国南部各州之外的可能作用。在风险认知的文化认知分析中，“解决方案厌恶”假设预示着，当提出的解决方案威胁到中心价值时（例如，支持自由市场），人们会否认或淡化问题的严重性（即，风险认知是解决方案评估的一个功能）。寨卡病例提供了如此多样的潜在解决方案，我们可以探索人们内部和不同人之间的反应如何在解决方案之间变化。例如，保守派可能会被涉及避孕、堕胎或减缓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;这两个群体都可能会被蚊子的基因改造冒犯。通过评估这种反应随着时间的推移的动态，该项目的进步知识的作用，解决方案的评价在风险认知和危害管理的偏好，无论是传染病管理和危害更普遍。该项目促进科学进步，了解公众对灾害管理的偏好，以及价值观、大众媒体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灾害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各种管理方案和风险沟通策略的可接受性，无论是对于这种特定的危害还是其他危害背景下的类似解决方案。该项目使用三波纵向调查，解决方案属性的预测试之前，测试是否以及如何解决方案的意见随着时间的推移而变化，价值观的作用和影响相对于其他更多的认知因素的解决方案的意见，不同种类的价值观和价值清单的相对作用在风险认知中，使用随机样本从不同的国家在线面板。第一波测量不同的价值观和库存（文化认知，全球价值观，道德基础）以及非寨卡风险认知和人口统计变量;第二波测量寨卡相关观点（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。对大众媒体和社交媒体中寨卡病毒的报道进行同步分析，可以测试这些媒体中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对“解决方案厌恶”假设的测试和扩展，以评估它是否1）仅适用于有争议的危险或解决方案; 2）总是影响对问题的看法; 3）仅由价值观塑造，而不是影响，认知评估（例如，有效性或可用性）或其他因素;以及4）与某些值相比与其他值更相关。价值度量的比较还允许首次测试这些不同方法的相对适当性，以评估价值对风险观点的影响。出口特定的（例如，特定的电视频道或标签）测试大众和社交媒体对解决方案的报道与个人之间的关联？这些解决方案的偏好和属性判断是另一项创新，它促进了对媒体设置和社会风险放大的理解。

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.