Americans' Views of Voluntary Protective Actions Against Zika Infection: Conceptual and Measurement Issues

Understanding factors affecting decisions by people to protect themselves, or not, is critical to designing supportive communications. Here, threat, protective-action, and stakeholder perceptions were evaluated for effects on mainland Americans' behavioral intentions regarding Zika in April 2017, as postulated by the Protective Action Decision Model. Although all three perception types (including a novel resource sufficiency measure) affected intentions, these relationships varied widely depending upon the method used to measure adoption of actions (e.g., total count of all behaviors adopted vs. behavior-specific analyses), the behaviors involved, and whether analysis focused on the full sample or only on people who had a reasonable opportunity to enact the behavior or who believed it relevant to their lives. There was a general contrast between mosquito control actions (removal of mosquito breeding areas and pesticide spraying) and travel-related behaviors (avoiding travel to areas of local transmission of the virus, protecting oneself from mosquito bites after potential exposure, and practicing safe sex after potential exposure). Reported action or inaction during the 2016 mosquito season, and stages of behavior change, were both elicited in January-February 2017; both drove intentions in April 2017 for the upcoming season, although direct and indirect effects varied widely. Collectively these findings present theoretical, measurement, and practical implications for understanding, tracking, and promoting voluntary protective actions against hazards.

Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending

Recollection bias (RB) refers to the phenomenon whereby after an adverse event people report that their risk assessment about a similar future event is presently no higher than their recollection of their pre-event risk assessment. While previous research has outlined this theoretical construct and generated important empirical findings, there were some limitations. We design and employ a new national representative survey to address these limitations in this study. We examine the existence and persistence of RB among the general public in the context of a number of domestic and international terrorist attacks. We further examine the socioeconomic and political base of RB and the influences of RB on a wide range of citizens' counterterrorism policy preferences. Our data analyses reveal strong evidence showing the occurrence of RB and its persistence across various forms of terrorism risk. With regard to the socioeconomic and political base, we find that females, older people, political conservatives, and Republicans are less likely to be subject to RB. For the effects of RB on public counterterrorism policy preferences, our analyses demonstrate that this bias significantly dampens public support for a wide range of preventive policy measures and government anti-terrorism spending. Overall, our study, based on a national representative sample and an extended survey design, provides robust evidence of RB in terrorism risk assessment, and adds further evidence to support the idea that RB is likely a generalizable phenomenon. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed in the conclusion.

Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening

The growing number of anti-terrorism policies has elevated public concerns about discrimination. Within the context of airport security screening, the current study examines how American travelers value the principle of equal protection by quantifying the "equity premium" that they are willing to sacrifice to avoid screening procedures that result in differential treatments. In addition, we applied the notion of procedural justice to explore the effect of alternative selective screening procedures on the value of equal protection. Two-hundred and twenty-two respondents were randomly assigned to one of three selective screening procedures: (1) randomly, (2) using behavioral indicators, or (3) based on demographic characteristics. They were asked to choose between airlines using either an equal or a discriminatory screening procedure. While the former requires all passengers to be screened in the same manner, the latter mandates all passengers undergo a quick primary screening and, in addition, some passengers are selected for a secondary screening based on a predetermined selection criterion. Equity premiums were quantified in terms of monetary cost, wait time, convenience, and safety compromise. Results show that equity premiums varied greatly across respondents, with many indicating little willingness to sacrifice to avoid inequitable screening, and a smaller minority willing to sacrifice anything to avoid the discriminatory screening. The selective screening manipulation was effective in that equity premiums were greater under selection by demographic characteristics compared to the other two procedures.

Near-misses and future disaster preparedness

Disasters garner attention when they occur, and organizations commonly extract valuable lessons from visible failures, adopting new behaviors in response. For example, the United States saw numerous security policy changes following the September 11 terrorist attacks and emergency management and shelter policy changes following Hurricane Katrina. But what about those events that occur that fall short of disaster? Research that examines prior hazard experience shows that this experience can be a mixed blessing. Prior experience can stimulate protective measures, but sometimes prior experience can deceive people into feeling an unwarranted sense of safety. This research focuses on how people interpret near-miss experiences. We demonstrate that when near-misses are interpreted as disasters that did not occur and thus provide the perception that the system is resilient to the hazard, people illegitimately underestimate the danger of subsequent hazardous situations and make riskier decisions. On the other hand, if near-misses can be recognized and interpreted as disasters that almost happened and thus provide the perception that the system is vulnerable to the hazard, this will counter the basic "near-miss" effect and encourage mitigation. In this article, we use these distinctions between resilient and vulnerable near-misses to examine how people come to define an event as either a resilient or vulnerable near-miss, as well as how this interpretation influences their perceptions of risk and their future preparedness behavior. Our contribution is in highlighting the critical role that people's interpretation of the prior experience has on their subsequent behavior and in measuring what shapes this interpretation.