Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)–related risk perceptions, knowledge, precautionary actions, and information sources were studied in the Netherlands during the 2003 SARS outbreak. Although respondents were highly aware of the SARS outbreak, the outbreak did not result in unnecessary precautionary actions or fears.

Purpose To study the levels of perceived threat, perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, response efficacy, and selfefficacy for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and eight other diseases in five European and three Asian countries.Method A computer-assisted phone survey was conducted among 3,436 respondents. The questionnaire focused on perceived threat, vulnerability, severity, response efficacy, and self-efficacy related to SARS and eight other diseases. Results Perceived threat of SARS in case of an outbreak in the country was higher than that of other diseases. Perceived vulnerability of SARS was at an intermediate level and perceived severity was high compared to other diseases. Perceived threat for SARS varied between countries in Europe and Asia with a higher perceived severity of SARS in Europe and a higher perceived vulnerability in Asia. Response efficacy and self-efficacy for SARS were higher in Asia compared to Europe. In multiple linear regression analyses, country was strongly associated with perceived threat. Conclusions The relatively high perceived threat for SARS indicates that it is seen as a public health risk and offers a basis for communication in case of an outbreak. The strong association between perceived threat and country and different regional patterns require further research.

During autumn 2005, we conducted 3,436 interviews in European and Asian countries. We found risk perceptions of avian influenza to be at an intermediate level and beliefs of efficacy to be slightly lower. Risk perceptions were higher in Asia than Europe; efficacy beliefs were lower in Europe than Asia.

We predicted that discussion would enhance dominant group values, leading to increased polarization between homogeneously composed groups of high-, medium-, and low-prejudice high school subjects. In an experimental condition, group members made individual attitude judgments, discussed them, and remade judgments. Control groups discussed irrelevant materials before responding again to the attitude items. As predicted, discussion of the racial attitude items with others having similar attitudes significantly increased the gap between high- and low-prejudice groups.

No abstract