Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Btb

No description
by

Meredith Gore

on 7 September 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Btb

Michigan AgBioResearch
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife School of Criminal Justice
Building capacity for more effective disease management
Demographic data readily available, more so than context-specific attitudinal data
Promote resilience rather than anticipation
Integrate with other disease/health messaging
HIV/AIDS
Implications
Social construction of risk
Responses to danger, social position, experience
power, control, benefits from technology, vulnerability to discrimination
Engagement-based risk communication
CAUTION!
Aligning demographics with risk attitudes may obscure variation across individuals
Gender, Race & Experience
Race & ARP
Past union membership & CRP
The greater and more acceptable disease risks are to certain groups, the more judgment depends on emotion
ARP & emotion-based risk communication
CRP & problem-based messaging
Influence of demographics on disease-related risk perception
Race greatest and age least effect
Highest ARP among females, Hispanic/Latinos, non-whites, African Americans, non-Asians, non-hunters
Greater ARP among participants who were: Jewish, separated, in school, urban, Democrat, older, less educated
Affective risk perception (ARP)
n = 979, 52% female, 18-91 years old, Xbar = 2 years of college
Cognitive alpha = 0.904, Affective alpha = 0.807
85% (n = 828) had low Btb risk perceptions
Lower cognitive risk perceptions (Xbar = 3.10) than affective risk perceptions (Xbar = 3.30) (Χ2 = 2532.86, p < 0.00)
Context specific risk perceptions
Telephone survey of Michigan residents ≥
May-June 2010
Institute for Pubic Policy and Social Research
Weighted data
Btb risks to MI cattle, ecosystems, citizens, wild deer, affective and cognitive risk perceptions
10 questions about cognitive and affective risk perception
16 demographic variables
Methods
Principally disease of cattle
Intestinal lesions, pulmonary infection, chronic skin infection, death, opportunistic infection for HIV-infected persons
Economic risks; public health risks; ecosystem risks spillover transmission, changes in landscape attributes
Wildlife reservoirs threaten eradication efforts
wild boar in Spain
Btb

Demographic characteristics reveal variation
Tailor communication
Improve accuracy
Helps predict group-level responses
Race and gender
Who perceives risk?
Zoonotic and emerging infectious disease (EID) threaten ecosystems, economies and human health
Disease risk management includes:
Technical assessments
Subjective judgments
Can’t assume groups judge disease management the same
Knowing how risks are defined determines in part how they are resolved
Perceptions and disease risk management
Margin of sampling error ±3.2%
52% female
18-91 y.o. (Xbar = 46)
8th grade to graduate degree (Xbar = 2 yr college)
Alpha values:
Affective risk perception = 0.807
Cognitive risk perception = 0.904
Results
Past union membership greatest and education level least effect
Highest CRP among females, non-Hispanic/Latino, whites, non-African American, Asians, Native Americans, non-union members and non-hunters
Greater CRP among participants who were: Jewish, separated, not working, from small city, Independent, older, less educated
Cognitive risk perception (CRP)
Summated rating scales using Likert technique for cognitive and affective risk perception (Alpha > 0.65)
Response differences and group size effects tested using:
Independent samples t-tests & Cohen’s d
ANOVA & Eta
Correlations & r2
Analysis
Goals & Expectations
Demographics and zoonotic disease-related risk perception
Meredith L. Gore
Shawn J. Riley
Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
School of Criminal Justice

Distinct dimensions
Affect
Cognition
(cc) photo by medhead on Flickr
Low risk perceptions associated with Btb
Gender, race, & experience matter
Characteristics influencing affective risk perception unequal to cognitive risk perception
Full transcript