IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i2p337-345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans

Author

Listed:
  • Noel T. Brewer
  • Sarah E. Lillie
  • William K. Hallman

Abstract

The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.

Suggested Citation

  • Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:337-345
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles N. Haas, 2002. "The Role of Risk Analysis in Understanding Bioterrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 671-677, August.
    2. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    3. Paul F. Deisler, 2002. "A Perspective: Risk Analysis as a Tool for Reducing the Risks of Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 405-413, June.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    6. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    7. Hallman, W.K. & Brunswick, N. & Kipen, H.M. & Diefenbach, M. & Boyd, K. & Kang, H. & Leventhal, H. & Wartenberg, D., 2003. "Symptom patterns among gulf war registry veterans," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(4), pages 624-630.
    8. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noel T. Brewer & William K. Hallman & Howard M. Kipen, 2008. "The Symmetry Rule: A Seven‐Year Study of Symptoms and Explanatory Labels Among Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1737-1748, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    2. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    3. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    4. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    5. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    6. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2008. "Trust and Risk Communication in High‐Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 141-149, February.
    7. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    9. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    10. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    11. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    12. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    13. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    14. Yingqi Zhong & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Zuhui Huang & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Effects of Food-Additive-Information on Consumers’ Willingness to Accept Food with Additives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    16. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    17. Cornelia Betsch & Frank Renkewitz & Niels Haase, 2013. "Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 14-25, January.
    18. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    19. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    20. Mathew P. White & J. Christopher Cohrs & Anja S. Göritz, 2011. "Dynamics of Trust in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 710-720, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:337-345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.