Cross‐Sectional Psychological and Demographic Associations of Zika Knowledge and Conspiracy Beliefs Before and After Local Zika Transmission

Abstract

Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in disease‐specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and self‐efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015–2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved cross‐sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (March–May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (July–August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and self‐efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association.

Knowledge and information credibility evaluation strategies regarding COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

“…Accurate knowledge about the causes, consequences, and prevention methods for an infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate protective behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak ( Piltch-Loeb et al, 2019 ; Taylor, Raphael, Agho, & Jorm, 2009 ). Research in cognitive psychology indicates that procedural knowledge in itself does not suffice; science-based knowledge is needed for the construction of causal explanations ( Hastie, 2015 ; Rehder & Hastie, 2001 ).…”

Solidarity, vulnerability and mistrust: how context, information and government affect the lives of women in times of Zika

“…1). Few studies in the literature [28][29][30][31] address the experiences of women indirectly affected and less vulnerable to the effects of the Zika epidemic. Our study demonstrate that the social effects of the epidemic affect more women than had been thought before and at deeper levels.…”

War Against COVID‐19: How Is National Identification Linked With the Adoption of Disease‐Preventive Behaviors in China and the United States?

“…Past studies have revealed that risk perception, negative and positive emotions toward the disease outbreak, and confidence in the government's ability to tackle the outbreak are key motivational factors underlying disease‐preventive behaviors in the current pandemic (Graham et al, 2020) and other disease outbreaks (Zika virus; Piltch‐Loeb et al, 2019). To rule out alternative explanations based on these factors and to demonstrate the unique contribution of national identification to disease‐preventive behavior, we measured and included the three constructs (risk perception, negative and positive emotions toward COVID‐19, and confidence in the government's ability to tackle COVID‐19) as well as general demographic variables as covariates in our data analysis of both studies.…”

“…We created a two‐item measure to capture participants' perceived institutional confidence based on past studies (e.g., Piltch‐Loeb et al, 2019). Participants reported on a 7‐point scale (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely ) to indicate the extent to which they were confident in Chinese scientists' and the Chinese governments' ability to control the spread of COVID‐19.…”