Personal, Interpersonal, and Media Predictors of Fear of Ebola

Abstract

Fear of infectious disease has the potential to damage local economies, disrupt health care delivery systems, and diminish immune functioning, whether or not the risk is objectively high. The appearance of Ebola in the United States offered an opportunity to study the causes of fear in a real-world event. Shortly after the death of the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States, survey data were gathered (N = 849) from residents of Dallas and U.S. citizens outside of Texas. Fear was positively associated with age (younger), gender (female), and ethnicity (non-White), but not geographic proximity (Dallas vs. not Dallas). Exposure to Ebola-related information via interpersonal channels (friends/family, acquaintances/coworkers) corresponded with higher levels of fear, but the findings for media channels were more varied, showing positive effects (newspapers/magazines), negative effects (Internet), and null effects (TV/radio). The study provides insight into the personal, interpersonal, and media correlates of fear of Ebola.

Media system dependency and change in risk perception during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…This media effect on the risk perceived by people has been confirmed widely in different studies (Dillard and Yang, 2019;Morton and Duck, 2001;Wahlberg and Sjӧberg, 2000;Yoo, 2019), both for the case of the traditional media and the social networks (Duc-Huynh, 2020;Muñiz, 2011;Yoo, 2019). In this sense, it has been detected that great consumption of media can generate and/or increase anxiety and risk perception by people (Coleman, 1993) and even affect their behavior (Morton and Duck, 2001).…”

“…In these contexts, it is common for a sensation of fear to increase among the population before the situation at hand, that is, a negative emotion associated with others such as anxiety or concern before the uncertainty that accompanies the crisis. This emotion usually tends to emerge when the context is perceived as unfavorable, to the extent that the person feel that the risk of being affected by the threat is real and strong (Dillard and Yang, 2019;Yang, Dillard, and Li, 2018). Therefore, it is possible to observe a clear relation between the development of negative emotions and the increase of risk perception, which grows in situations of crisis and uncertainty.…”

“…While the individual one implies the sensation that individuals have of being affected personally by the existing danger, the social level manifests itself in the feeling that the crisis can affect other people more than it can the respondents, whether they are known or unknown people (Morton and Duck, 2001). At any rate, risk perception tends to increase as certain amplifying stations increase the social feeling of the risk (Dillard and Yang, 2019;Yang, Dillard, and Li, 2018), among them interpersonal networks and the media.…”

Crisis and Risk Communication Scholarship of the Future: Reflections on Research Gaps

“…At the inaugural meeting of our editorial board in March 2019, members noted that it is important to publish research that advances practice, and not just theory. We have already published research in this journal on some of the most noteworthy risks and crises of our time, including the refugee crisis in Europe (Johansson, 2018), the Ebola pandemic (Dillard & Yang, 2019;Sellnow-Richmond et al, 2018), sexual misconduct on college campuses (Woods & Veil, 2020), and the Fukashima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Kwesell & Jung, 2019). We call for more research on such contemporary crises, advancing theory and practice for 21st century risk and crisis communication challenges.…”

Here we go again!

“…Although the American Association of Orthodontists has developed a comprehensive transfer form that summarizes all essential information including financial history, use of the form is voluntary. 2 Whereas it is courteous and desirable for the initial and new orthodontist to communicate regarding a transfer patient, there is no ethical or legal responsibility to do so. Consider this regarding treatment of a transfer patient: "It is not unethical to remove appliances from, or to continue treatment of, a patient not of record upon request by that patient; provided, that substantial effort should be made to determine the reason for the request from the patient and, with the patient's consent, consult with the patient's practitioner prior to such removal or continuation of treatment."…”