IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i6p1079-1089.html

Altruism During Ebola: Risk Perception, Issue Salience, Cultural Cognition, and Information Processing

Author

Listed:
  • Z. Janet Yang

Abstract

A nationally representative sample of 1,046 U.S. adults was randomly assigned to two experimental conditions that triggered different degrees of risk perception related to the Ebola outbreak. In the high‐risk condition, issue salience and deliberate processing increased individuals’ altruistic behavioral intention. In contrast, cultural cognition worldview and negative emotions such as sadness and anger were significantly related to altruistic behavioral intention regardless of the experimental conditions. These findings suggest that affective responses diverge from cognitive processes in influencing risk‐related decisions. Practically, as the United States continues to send experts to the affected countries in West Africa, results from this study suggest meaningful pathways to improve risk communication intended to encourage more altruistic and pro‐social behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Z. Janet Yang, 2016. "Altruism During Ebola: Risk Perception, Issue Salience, Cultural Cognition, and Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1079-1089, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:1079-1089
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12526
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12526?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. LeeAnn Kahlor & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin & Kurt Neuwirth & James Giese, 2003. "Studying Heuristic‐Systematic Processing of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 355-368, April.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1997. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Communication About Food Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 759-770, December.
    4. Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2009. "Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 297-306, June.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    7. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    8. Robert J. Griffin & Sharon Dunwoody & Fernando Zabala, 1998. "Public Reliance on Risk Communication Channels in the Wake of a Cryptosporidium Outbreak," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 367-375, August.
    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. Weidan Cao & Qinghua Yang & Xinyao Zhang, 2023. "Understanding Information Processing and Protective Behaviors during the Pandemic: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Hao Xu & Smitha Muthya Sudheendra & Jisu Huh & Aadesh Salecha & Jaideep Srivastava, 2024. "Influence of emotions on coping behaviors in crisis: a computational analysis of the COVID-19 outbreak," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1599-1623, October.
    3. Salvador Baena‐Morales & Alejandro Vásquez‐Echeverría & Diego Gavilán‐Martín & Sixto González‐Villora, 2024. "Psychological approaches to sustainability: Implementing intervention model for sustainable development in physical education," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 5692-5704, October.
    4. Janet Z. Yang, 2019. "Whose Risk? Why Did the U.S. Public Ignore Information About the Ebola Outbreak?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1708-1722, August.
    5. Baruch Fischhoff & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Dana Rose Garfin & E. Alison Holman & Roxane Cohen Silver, 2018. "Public Understanding of Ebola Risks: Mastering an Unfamiliar Threat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 71-83, January.
    6. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    7. Clark H. Warner & Marion Fortin & Tessa Melkonian, 2024. "When Are We More Ethical? A Review and Categorization of the Factors Influencing Dual-Process Ethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(4), pages 843-882, February.
    8. Zhang, Miaoyin (Alexandra), 2025. "Does marketplace lending provide liquidity during a crisis?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    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. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    2. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    3. Weisser, Reinhard A., 2024. "Shots, sympathy, and societal support: How conflict intensity translates into cooperative behaviour towards the displaced," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Grossman, Zachary & van der Weele, Joël & Andrijevik, Ana, 2014. "A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt4tm617f7, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    5. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2011. "Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 638-650, October.
    6. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    8. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    9. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    10. Jonathan Schulz & Urs Fischbacher & Christian Thöni & Verena Utikal, 2011. "Affect and Fairness," TWI Research Paper Series 68, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    11. Savadori, Lucia & Lauriola, Marco, 2022. "Risk perceptions and COVID-19 protective behaviors: A two-wave longitudinal study of epidemic and post-epidemic periods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    12. Carin Huber & Tobias Schlager, 2018. "Testing the risk as feeling and risk as analysis perspective for insurance: the antecedents of purchasing unit-linked life insurance products," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 25-37, March.
    13. Jay J. Van Bavel & Katherine Baicker & Paulo S. Boggio & Valerio Capraro & Aleksandra Cichocka & Mina Cikara & Molly J. Crockett & Alia J. Crum & Karen M. Douglas & James N. Druckman & John Drury & Oe, 2020. "Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(5), pages 460-471, May.
    14. Samson, Alain & Voyer, Benjamin G., 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47252, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Jacob Dalgaard Christensen & Jacob L. Orquin & Jorge Barraza & Paul J. Zak & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2019. "Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 19-36, May.
    16. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    17. Quan Gao & Hye Eun Lee, 2021. "How Framed Messages Influence Depression Assessment Intentions: Interactivity of Social Media as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Danijela Vuletic, 2015. "How Effective are Reminders and Frames in Incentivizing Blood Donations," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp554, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    19. Toma, Mattie & Bell, Elizabeth, 2024. "Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    20. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, 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:36:y:2016:i:6:p:1079-1089. 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.