Sangeeta C Ahluwalia, Maria O Edelen, Nabeel Qureshi, Jason M Etchegaray
{"title":"Trust in experts, not trust in national leadership, leads to greater uptake of recommended actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Sangeeta C Ahluwalia, Maria O Edelen, Nabeel Qureshi, Jason M Etchegaray","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242428/pdf/RHC3-12-283.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.
期刊介绍：
Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
