IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i10p3387-d357384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government Intervention, Risk Perception, and the Adoption of Protective Action Recommendations: Evidence from the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Experience of China

Author

Listed:
  • Taixiang Duan

    (Department of Sociology, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, Jiangsu Province, China)

  • Hechao Jiang

    (Research Institute of Social Development, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, Sichuan Province, China)

  • Xiangshu Deng

    (Research Institute of Social Development, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, Sichuan Province, China)

  • Qiongwen Zhang

    (Research Institute of Social Development, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, Sichuan Province, China)

  • Fang Wang

    (Research Institute of Social Development, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, Sichuan Province, China)

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between government interventions, risk perception, and the public’s adoption of protective action recommendations (PARs) during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease emergency in mainland China. We conducted quota sampling based on the proportion of the population in each province and gender ratios in the Sixth Census and obtained a sample size of 3837. Government intervention was divided into government communication, government prevention and control, and government rescue. We used multiple regression and a bootstrap mediation effect test to study the mechanism of these three forms of government intervention on the public’s adoption of PARs. The results show that government prevention and control and government rescue significantly increased the likelihood of the public adopting PARs. Risk perception was significantly associated with the public’s adoption of PARs. The effects of government interventions and risk perception on the public’s adoption of PARs was not found to vary by region. Risk perception is identified as an important mediating factor between government intervention and the public’s adoption of PARs. These results indicate that increasing the public’s risk perception is an effective strategy for governments seeking to encourage the public to adopt PARs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Taixiang Duan & Hechao Jiang & Xiangshu Deng & Qiongwen Zhang & Fang Wang, 2020. "Government Intervention, Risk Perception, and the Adoption of Protective Action Recommendations: Evidence from the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Experience of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3387-:d:357384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/10/3387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    3. Nicole C. J. Brienen & Aura Timen & Jacco Wallinga & Jim E. Van Steenbergen & Peter F. M. Teunis, 2010. "The Effect of Mask Use on the Spread of Influenza During a Pandemic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1210-1218, August.
    4. Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung‐Der Wang & Meng‐Wen Tsou, 2005. "Valuation of the risk of SARS in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 83-91, January.
    5. Gabriele Prati & Luca Pietrantoni & Bruna Zani, 2011. "A Social‐Cognitive Model of Pandemic Influenza H1N1 Risk Perception and Recommended Behaviors in Italy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 645-656, April.
    6. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shuhuan Zhou & Xiaokun Yang & Yi Wang & Xia Zheng & Zhian Zhang, 2023. "Affective agenda dynamics on social media: interactions of emotional content posted by the public, government, and media during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Bình Nghiêm-Phú & Hồng Long Phạm, 2022. "Local Residents’ Attitudes Toward Reopening Inbound Tourism Amid COVID-19: A Study in Vietnam," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    3. Peng Gu & Hao Zhang & Zeheng Liang & Dazhi Zhang, 2022. "Impact of Public Risk Perception in China on the Intention to Use Sports APPs during COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Jina Choo & Sooyeon Park & Songwhi Noh, 2021. "Associations of COVID-19 Knowledge and Risk Perception with the Full Adoption of Preventive Behaviors in Seoul," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Bai, Chenjiang & Duan, Yuejiao & Liu, Congya & Qiu, Leiju, 2022. "International taxation sentiment and COVID-19 crisis," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Teng Zhao & Yuchen Zhang & Chao Wu & Qiang Su, 2021. "Will Anti-Epidemic Campus Signals Affect College Students’ Preparedness in the Post-COVID-19 Era?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, September.
    7. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Taixiang Duan & Zhonggen Sun & Guoqing Shi, 2021. "Sustained Effects of Government Response on the COVID-19 Infection Rate in China: A Multiple Mediation Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Alex de Lima Teodoro da Penha & Samuel Vinícius Bonato & Joana Baleeiro Passos & Eduardo da Silva Fernandes & Cínthia Kulpa & Carla Schwengber ten Caten, 2024. "Navigating the Urgency: An Open Innovation Project of Protective Equipment Development from a Quadruple Helix Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-32, February.
    10. Hongfeng Zhang & Chengyun Sun & Lu Huang & Hongyun Si, 2021. "Does Government Intervention Ensure Food Safety? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Charulata Jindal & Sandeep Kumar & Sunil Sharma & Yuk Ming Choi & Jimmy T. Efird, 2020. "The Prevention and Management of COVID-19: Seeking a Practical and Timely Solution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-11, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Taixiang Duan & Zhonggen Sun & Guoqing Shi, 2021. "Sustained Effects of Government Response on the COVID-19 Infection Rate in China: A Multiple Mediation Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Ye, Maoxin & Lyu, Zeyu, 2020. "Trust, risk perception, and COVID-19 infections: Evidence from multilevel analyses of combined original dataset in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    4. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Anna C. M. Queiroz & Géraldine Fauville & Adina T. Abeles & Aaron Levett & Jeremy N. Bailenson, 2023. "The Efficacy of Virtual Reality in Climate Change Education Increases with Amount of Body Movement and Message Specificity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    9. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    10. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    11. Tara Kirk Sell & Crystal Watson & Diane Meyer & Marissa Kronk & Sanjana Ravi & Laura E. Pechta & Keri M. Lubell & Dale A. Rose, 2018. "Frequency of Risk‐Related News Media Messages in 2016 Coverage of Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2514-2524, December.
    12. Eric Shook & Andrew Curtis & Jacqueline Curtis & Gregory Gibson & Anthony Vander Horst & Virginia Little & Christopher Woolverton, 2019. "Assessing the Geographic Context of Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Potential Ebola Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-6, March.
    13. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    15. Jia, Ling & Qian, Queena K. & Meijer, Frits & Visscher, Henk, 2021. "How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Tao Xu & Mengyuan Shao & Ruiquan Liu & Xiaoqin Wu & Kai Zheng, 2023. "Risk Perception, Perceived Government Coping Validity, and Individual Response in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    17. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    18. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    19. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    20. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:10:p:3387-:d:357384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.