Effects of Social Cues on Biosecurity Compliance in Livestock Facilities: Evidence From Experimental Simulations.
biosecurity
compliance
psychological distance
risk
social cue
Journal
Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
Titre abrégé: Front Vet Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666658
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2019
accepted:
20
02
2020
entrez:
16
4
2020
pubmed:
16
4
2020
medline:
16
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Disease outbreaks in U.S. animal livestock industries have economic impacts measured in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Biosecurity, or procedures intended to protect animals against disease, is known to be effective at reducing infection risk at facilities. Yet, to the detriment of animal health, humans do not always follow biosecurity protocols. Human behavioral factors have been shown to influence willingness to follow biosecurity protocols. Here we show how social cues may affect cooperation with a biosecurity practice. Participants were immersed in a simulated swine production facility through a graphical user interface and prompted to make a decision that addressed their willingness to comply with a biosecurity practice. We tested the effect of varying three experimental variables: (1) the risk of acquiring an infection, (2) the delivery method of the infection risk information (numerical vs. graphical), and (3) the behavior of an automated coworker in the facility. We provide evidence that participants changed their behavior when they observed a simulated worker making a choice to follow or not follow a biosecurity protocol, even though the simulated worker had no economic effect on the participants' payouts. These results advance the understanding of human behavioral effects on biosecurity protocol decisions, demonstrating that social cues need to be considered by livestock facility managers when developing policies to make agricultural systems more disease resilient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32292792
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00130
pmc: PMC7120031
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
130Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Trinity, Merrill, Clark, Koliba, Zia, Bucini and Smith.
Références
Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Mar 12;57:14
pubmed: 25887040
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006 Aug;14(3):311-7
pubmed: 16893274
Prev Vet Med. 2010 Mar 1;93(4):276-85
pubmed: 19963291
Vet J. 2018 Mar;233:41-48
pubmed: 29486878
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 17;14(4):e0214500
pubmed: 30995253
Risk Anal. 2009 Feb;29(2):267-87
pubmed: 19000070
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Sep 20;6:320
pubmed: 31620458
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5
pubmed: 26162106
Prev Vet Med. 2017 Jun 1;141:22-32
pubmed: 28532990
Front Vet Sci. 2016 Jun 22;3:46
pubmed: 27446934
Prev Vet Med. 2011 Jul 1;100(3-4):193-9
pubmed: 21605922
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Jun 21;5:137
pubmed: 29977897
J Dairy Sci. 2017 May;100(5):3329-3347
pubmed: 28237585
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 28;17(10):e245
pubmed: 26510775
Front Psychol. 2011 Jul 12;2:160
pubmed: 21811477
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Jun 04;6:156
pubmed: 31214603
Psychol Sci. 2008 Aug;19(8):796-801
pubmed: 18816287
Vet Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;38(6):835-48
pubmed: 17903417
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
pubmed: 17835457
J Environ Manage. 2012 Aug 15;104:142-51
pubmed: 22495015
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149-63
pubmed: 10854471
N Z Vet J. 2011 Jan;59(1):1-7
pubmed: 21328151
Health Psychol. 2005 Jul;24(4S):S35-40
pubmed: 16045417
Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21
pubmed: 12885109
Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):311-22
pubmed: 15078302