Skip to main content
Log in

Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release

  • Published:
Environment Systems & Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extensive research has explored policy challenges associated with preparing and responding to a large-scale biological release. A key component in recovery strategy development that has received less attention is the understanding of government policy influence on the impacted populations’ migratory decisions. This study experimentally manipulates health and economic government policies during response and recovery to assess the extent to which public migration is contingent on the level of government intervention. Set immediately following a large-scale anthrax release in San Francisco, we use a five episode video scenario to describe details about the environmental impacts of the disaster, emergency response procedures, and clean-up operations. Within these video segments, the extent of government involvement in economic and health risk policies is manipulated. Using these manipulations as predictors, we track how varying levels of government risk signals influence migration behavior at three distinct decision points during disaster recovery. In addition, two belief scales and two scales of emotion (affect) are included as predictors to explore the potential for their mediating role in explaining intentions to migrate. We find that the decision to migrate is highly context-sensitive, with each decision point showing a unique combination of significant predictors influencing decision making. At 19 days following the anthrax release, the health risk policy manipulation has both a direct and indirect effect on migration behavior. At 3 months, the influence of the health risk policy manipulation is mediated by beliefs, and at 1 year, only indirect effects associated with affect and beliefs influence migration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Copies of the videos developed for the scenario simulation are available upon request to rosoff@usc.edu.

  2. Additional analyses were run using gender, income, age, and whether or not the participant had children as covariates/potential moderators, and no significant results were found.

References

  • Adams RE, Boscarino JA (2005) Stress and well-being in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack: the continuing effects of a communitywide disaster. J Community Psychol 33:175–190. doi:10.1002/jcop.20030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Anan Y, Liberman N, Trope Y (2006) The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. J Exp Psychol Gen 135:609–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berke PR, Campanella TJ (2006) Planning for postdisaster resiliency. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno GA (2004) Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am J Psychol 59:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsma DL, Overfelt DJ, Picou S (2007) The sociology of katrina: perspectives on a modern catastrophe. Rowman & Littlefield, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke R (2005) Effects of 9/11 on individuals and organizations: down but not out! Disaster Prev Manag 14:629–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns WJ, Slovic P (2007) The diffusion of fear: modeling community response to a terrorist strike. J Def Model Simul Appl Method Technol 4:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellanos MB (2010) Solidarity in the aftermath of disaster: Cancún after Hurricane Wilma. Anthropol Now 2:37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Army (1977) U.S. army activity in the U.S. biological warfare programs, vol II. Publication DTIC B193427L, Washington

  • Fiedler K (2007) Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology. J Consum Psychol 17:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco C, Bouri N (2010) Environmental decontamination following a large-scale bioterrorism attack. Biosecur Bioterror 8:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giesecke JA, Burns WJ, Barrett A, Bayrak E, Rose A, Slovic P, Suher M (2012) Assessment of the regional economic impacts of catastrophic events: CGE analysis of resource loss and behavioral effects of a RDD attack scenario. Risk Anal 32:583–600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk D (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat Hazards Rev 4:136–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Gursky E, Inglesby T, O’Toole T (2003) Anthrax 2001: Observations on the Medical and Public Health Response. Biosec Bioterror Biodef Strateg Pract Sci 1:97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel W, Cohen R, Victor W (2004) The pitfalls of bioterrorism preparedness: the anthrax and smallpox experiences. Am J Public Health 94:1667–1671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson W (2007) Emotions and sense making in disturbance: community adaptation to dangerous environments. Hum Ecol Rev 14:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortepeter M, Parker G (2009) Potential biological weapons threats. Emerg Infect Dis 5:523–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kweit M, Kweit R (2004) Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. Am Rev Public Adm 34:354–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C, Welch N (2001) The dynamics of evolving beliefs, concerns emotions, and behavioral avoidance following 9/11: a longitudinal analysis of representative archival samples. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle SC, Rosoff H, John RS (2012) The Dynamics of evolving beliefs, concerns emotions, and behavioral avoidance following 9/11: a longitudinal analysis of representative archival samples. Risk Anal 32:744–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mileti D, Gailus JL (2005) Sustainable development and hazards mitigation in the United States: disasters by design revisited. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 10:491–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson O, Weil F, Patel K (2010) The Role of community in disaster response: conceptual models. Popul Res Policy Rev 29:127–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxson C, Rouse CE (2008) Returning to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Am Econ Rev 98:38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister HR, Böhm G (2008) The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgm decis mak 3:5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Kasperson R, Slovic P (2003) The social amplification of risk. University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosoff H, John RS, Burns W, Maya I (2011) Scenario simulation group reactions to the aftermath of the great shake-out magnitude 7.8 earthquake. Earthq Spectra 27:597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosoff H, John RS, Prager F (2012a) Flu, risks, and videotape: escalating fear and avoidance. Risk Anal 32:729–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosoff H, John RS, Burns W, Siko R (2012b) Structuring uncertainty and conflicting objectives for life or death decisions following an urban biological catastrophe. J Integr Disaster Risk Manag. doi:10.5595/idrim.2012.0035

  • Runge JW (2008) Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, written testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, July 22, 2008

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney KJ, Bevc C, Kuligowski E (2006) Metaphors matter: disaster myths, media frames, and their consequences in Hurricane Katrina. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 604:57–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117:440–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Perspect Soc Psychol 54:1063–1070

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weick K, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ Sci 16:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weis CP, Intrepido AJ, Miller AK, Cowin PG, Durno MA, Gebhardt JS, Bull R (2002) Secondary aerosolization of viable Bacillus anthracis spores in a contaminated US Senate Office. JAMA 288:2853–2858

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Rosoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosoff, H., Siko, R., John, R. et al. Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release. Environ Syst Decis 33, 121–137 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-012-9431-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-012-9431-4

Keywords

Navigation