RAPID: Public Responses to Personal and Societal Risk: Attitudes and Behavior on COVID-19 and Global Change

该项目研究公众对COVID-19和全球变化的反应，以促进美国公民的健康，繁荣和福利，并促进科学进步。应对COVID-19和全球变化需要大规模的集体行动和政府应对。然而，在这两个问题上，不作为的后果会被推迟，不作为的成本和收益分配不均，如果不加以关注，危害会随着时间的推移呈指数级增长。这些特点使我们很难从经验中吸取教训，并导致人们严重低估不作为的代价。然而，美国公众对这两种风险的反应似乎大相径庭。该研究项目将系统地比较美国公众对这两次危机的看法和反应，并在未来几个月随着COVID-19大流行的继续展开而对其进行跟踪。了解人们的看法和反应将突出显示对每一场危机的有希望的（可能不同的）政策反应。更好地从社会科学的角度理解公众在极度恐惧和高度不确定的情况下对COVID-19大流行的反应，对于公共和私人行为者设计有效和高效的政策干预和实施至关重要。该项目旨在了解公众对COVID-19反应的决定因素和后果，19和全球变化，并将审查这些反应的分析和情感方面。一个大型的全国代表性的小组调查（n = 4,000），使研究小组能够研究不同的公众群体如何应对每一种风险，并测试重点假设比较这些反应。纵向数据集将使研究人员能够了解这些反应如何随着大流行以及随着时间的推移以及在COVID-19发病率和反应快速变化的背景下暴露于大流行而演变。调查工具审查了几个长期重要的DRMS理论：（1）心理风险维度;（2）根据经验做出的决定和预测，即个人对（极端）后果的体验会影响风险和不确定性下的决定，而不仅仅是对其可能性的了解;（3）有限的担忧和人们在同一时间关注或担忧多种危险的能力有限的理论。从政治学的角度来看，该小组研究了公众的态度和行为是如何受到美国选民两极分化和对机构的信任变化的影响。在接下来的一年里，我们在四个场合收集了面板数据，跟踪了美国人的风险认知、对各种行为体的信任和不信任的变化，以及他们在这个独特、关键和不确定的时期参与的意愿，在这个时期，COVID-19感染和风险将减少并恢复，以应对各州对封锁措施的不同执行和放松。这些假设的关键解释变量包括政党关系、社会信任水平、对科学的信任、个人经历以及发自内心的担忧和恐惧。新颖的调查实验探索了对多边行动的支持、与空气污染的联系、对流行病的态度与对绿色基础设施项目的支持之间的联系，以及对政府在这两个问题上的政策行动的相对支付意愿。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

The project studies public responses to COVID-19 and global change in order to advance the health, prosperity and welfare of American citizens and promote the progress of science. Addressing COVID-19 and global change requires large-scale collective action and governmental response. Yet, for both issues, the consequences of inaction are delayed, the costs and benefits of inaction are unequally distributed, and harms grow exponentially over time, if unattended. These features make it hard to learn from experience and lead to drastic underestimates of the costs of inaction. However, the response of the American public to the two risks appears to be very different. This research project will systematically compare public perceptions and reactions in the United States to these two crises, tracking them over the coming months as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold. Understanding people’s perceptions and responses will highlight promising (and likely different) policy responses to each crisis. A better social scientific understanding of public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic under conditions of great fear and deep uncertainty is crucial to inform the design of effective and efficient policy interventions and implementation by public and private actors.The project seeks to understand the determinants and consequences of public responses to COVID-19 and global change and will examine both the analytic and affective dimensions of these responses. A large nationally-representative panel survey (n = 4,000) enables the research team to examine how different segments of the public respond to each risk and to test focused hypotheses comparing these responses. The longitudinal dataset will allow the researchers to understand how these responses evolve as the pandemic, and exposure to the pandemic, unfold over time and against a rapidly evolving backdrop of COVID-19 incidence and response. The survey instrument examines several DRMS theories of long-standing importance: (1) Psychological risk dimensions; (2) Decisions from experience and the prediction that personal experience of (extreme) consequences shapes decisions under risk and uncertainty more than mere knowledge of their likelihood; (3) Finite pool of worry and theories of people’s limited ability to attend to or worry about multiple hazards at a time. From a political science perspective, the teams examines how public attitudes and behavior are affected by polarization in the American electorate and by variation in trust in institutions. Collecting panel data on four occasions over the course of the next year tracks changes in Americans’ risk perceptions, trust and distrust in various actors, and in their willingness to engage over this unique, critical, and uncertain time period, when COVID-19 infections and risks will abate and resume in response to differential enforcement and relaxations of lock-down measures across states. Key explanatory variables for the hypotheses include political party affiliation, levels of social trust, trust in science, personal experience, and visceral concern and dread. Novel survey experiments probe support for multilateral action, connection to air pollution, links between attitudes on the pandemic and support for green infrastructure programs, and comparative willingness to pay for government policy action on the two issues.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.