Search

The order in which individuals receive information about wildlife may influence their attitude toward wildlife differently. We explored order effects of a threat message that induced more fear versus a suffering message that elicited more compassion on attitude toward wildlife. Specifically, we focused on bats, a risk-laden species also suffering massive mortalities due to a disease affecting bat populations across the United States. We randomly assigned 1,506 U.S. adults to one of eight message conditions as part of a 2 (message order: suffering → threat vs. threat → suffering) × 2 (suffering messages) × 2 (threat messages) between-subjects factorial design or a control (no message) condition. We found a significant two-way interaction between message order and biospheric values on attitude toward bats. For people with high biospheric values, reading a suffering message first led to a more positive attitude than reading a threat message first, whereas reading a threat message first led to a more positive attitude than reading a suffering message first for people with low biospheric values. Compassion but not fear mediated these effects. Theoretical and practical implications are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do religious affiliation and beliefs shape vaccine attitudes and behaviors? This study examined the associations of attitudes and behaviors relevant to the flu, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), and human-papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines with religious affiliations, as well as philosophical, spiritual, and moral beliefs. Respondents were 3005 adults from a probability-based, four-wave panel survey in the United States. Longitudinal structural equation modeling examined how religious affiliations and philosophical/moral beliefs shaped attitudes toward vaccines and actual vaccination. Stronger philosophical beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward each vaccine and stronger moral beliefs more negative attitudes toward the HPV vaccine. Negative vaccine attitudes then predicted weaker intentions to encourage others to vaccinate and lower probability of receiving a vaccine. Theoretical and public health messaging implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]