Study Offers Insights for Communicating About Wildlife, Zoonotic Disease Amid COVID-19
A new study from North Carolina State University found that certain types of messages could influence how people perceive information about the spread of diseases from wildlife to humans.
The
researchers say the findings, published in the journal Frontiers in Communication, could help
scientists, policymakers and others more effectively communicate with diverse
audiences about zoonotic diseases and the role of wildlife management in
preventing them from spreading to people. Zoonotic diseases are diseases that
spread between animals and people.
“If we want to prevent and mitigate the next giant zoonotic disease, we need people to recognize these diseases can emerge from their interactions with wildlife,” said study co-author Nils Peterson, professor of forestry and environmental resources at NC State.
“We have to do better with how we interact with wildlife. We
also have to do better in terms of our communication, so people recognize the
root of the problem. We need to learn how to communicate with people about
zoonotic diseases and wildlife trade across partisan divides.”
In the study, researchers surveyed 1,554 people across the United States to understand whether they would see greater acceptance of scientific information about zoonotic diseases – specifically in regard to the potential role of wildlife trade in the origin and spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 – depending on how they structured their messaging.
Scientists from the World
Health Organization concluded in a report on the origins of COVID-19 earlier
this year that evidence points to a likely animal
origin. One group of scientists has
called for more clarity.
In their experiment, study participants were asked to read one of three articles. One article used a “technocratic” frame that emphasized the use of technology and human ingenuity to address diseases from wildlife, such as using monitoring and culling of animals with diseases.
This frame was designed to appeal to
people with an “individualistic” worldview. A second article had a “regulatory
frame” that emphasized using land conservation to create wildlife refuges as a
solution. This frame was designed to appeal to people with a “communitarian”
view. The third article was designed as a control, and was intended to be
neutral.
Researchers
then asked all of the participants to read part of an article that researchers
wrote about COVID-19 and the potential role of wildlife trade in its origin and
spread, and asked them about their perceived validity of the information.
Researchers also surveyed participants about their trust in science overall,
and belief in COVID-19’s wildlife origin.
“Past research suggests people process and filter information through their cultural lens, or based on how they think the society should function,” said the study’s lead author Justin Beall, a graduate student in parks, recreation and tourism management at NC State.
“We wanted to know, in the domain of
zoonotic disease management, what are the solutions for managing diseases that
might align with different cultural values in the United States? Would using
those perspectives impact how people accepted scientific information about the
wildlife origin of COVID-19?”
Researchers
found that people who identified as liberal reported higher perceived risk on
average from COVID-19. They were also more likely to accept evidence for the
wildlife origin of COVID-19 and support restrictions on wildlife trade.
When
researchers considered the link between message frames and participants’
acceptance of the information about COVID-19 and the potential role of wildlife
trade in its origin and spread, they found liberals who received the
technocratic framing were significantly less likely to find the information
valid, while conservatives were slightly more likely to find it valid. They
didn’t see any statistically significant relationship between the “regulatory”
framing and participants’ acceptance of the information.
“The
findings show us that cultural views are relevant for communicating about
wildlife disease,” Beall said. “We found that the technocratic viewpoint might
be more polarizing.”
That
suggests that for communicating to a diverse public audience about zoonotic
disease and wildlife trade, communicators should avoid using the technocratic
frame. However, when communicators are speaking to a conservative audience,
they could consider using the technocratic frame to increase acceptance.
Researchers
underscored the importance of the findings for conveying the idea that the
health of humans, wildlife and the environment are connected.
“We all exist in this giant ecosystem, and disease is part of it,” said study co-author Lincoln Larson, associate professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at NC State.
“If we’re talking about the
health of humans, we’re talking about the health of wildlife and ecosystems
simultaneously. It’s critical to develop effective communication strategies
that resonate with ideologically diverse audiences and lead to bipartisan
support and action.”
“Improving
communication and framing around zoonotic disease could help to prevent the
next global pandemic, and that’s a message everyone can get behind,” he added.
The study, “Cultural cognition and ideological framing influence about zoonotic disease in the era of COVID-19,” was published online in Frontiers in Communication on May 31, 2021. In addition to Beall, Larson and Peterson, other authors included William R. Casola, Wylie A. Carr, Erin Seekamp, Kathryn T. Stevenson and Steven B. Jackson.
The work was supported by
grant No. G15AP00162 from the U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Climate
Adaptation Science Center, which is managed by the USGS National Climate
Adaptation Science Center.
