IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v285y2021ics0277953621005992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak

Author

Listed:
  • Qin, Hua
  • Sanders, Christine
  • Prasetyo, Yanu
  • Syukron, Muh.
  • Prentice, Elizabeth

Abstract

The relationships between risk perception and related behavior form a fundamental theme in risk analysis. Despite increasing attentions on the temporal dimension of risk perception and behavior in recent literature, the dynamic relationships between these two constructs remain understudied. Infectious disease outbreaks, such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, provide a key setting for analyzing evolving perceptions of and responses to natural or human-induced hazards. The main objectives of this research are: (1) to assess temporal changes in cognitive and affective dimensions of perceived COVID-19 risk as well as related protective behavior; and (2) to explore the dynamic relationships between COVID-19 risk perception and behavioral responses. Timely data on changing risk perception and behavior related to the COVID-19 outbreak were collected through two series of online surveys from four major cities (Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City; N = 736) and the central Midwest region of the United States (N = 1240) respectively during March–August 2020. The analysis revealed that: (1) the cognitive and affective dimensions of perceived COVID-19 risk and preventive behavior all changed over time; (2) there were both within- and across-time correlations between COVID-19 risk perception indicators and preventive actions; and (3) preventive actions showed varied feedback effects on individual aspects of perceived COVID-19 risk over time. Findings from this research support and expand major conceptual approaches to changing relationships between risk perception and behavior, particularly the risk reappraisal hypothesis. The study also has useful implications for health risk management and future research directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Qin, Hua & Sanders, Christine & Prasetyo, Yanu & Syukron, Muh. & Prentice, Elizabeth, 2021. "Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:285:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005992
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621005992
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Michael Siegrist, 2013. "The Necessity for Longitudinal Studies in Risk Perception Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 50-51, January.
    3. Taciano L. Milfont, 2012. "The Interplay Between Knowledge, Perceived Efficacy, and Concern About Global Warming and Climate Change: A One‐Year Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1003-1020, June.
    4. George Rogers, 1997. "Dynamic Risk Perception in Two Communities: Risk Events and Changes in Perceived Risk," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 59-80.
    5. Craig Trumbo & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly Marlatt & Lori Peek & Bridget Morrissey, 2014. "An Assessment of Change in Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias for Hurricanes Among Gulf Coast Residents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1013-1024, June.
    6. Yun Su & Fan Zhao & Lingzhao Tan, 2015. "Whether a large disaster could change public concern and risk perception: a case study of the 7/21 extraordinary rainstorm disaster in Beijing in 2012," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(1), pages 555-567, August.
    7. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Htay-Wah Saw & Dana P. Goldman, 2020. "Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 177-194, October.
    8. Patricia A Champ & Hannah Brenkert‐Smith, 2016. "Is Seeing Believing? Perceptions of Wildfire Risk Over Time," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 816-830, April.
    9. Loewenstein, George & Mather, Jane, 1990. "Dynamic Processes in Risk Perception," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 155-175, June.
    10. Gidengil, C.A. & Parker, A.M. & Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., 2012. "Trends in risk perceptions and vaccination intentions: A longitudinal study of the first year of the H1N1 pandemic," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(4), pages 672-679.
    11. Raude, Jocelyn & MCColl, Kathleen & Flamand, Claude & Apostolidis, Themis, 2019. "Understanding health behaviour changes in response to outbreaks: Findings from a longitudinal study of a large epidemic of mosquito-borne disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 184-193.
    12. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    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. De Witte, Dries & Delporte, Margaux & Molenberghs, Geert & Verbeke, Geert & Demarest, Stefaan & Hoorens, Vera, 2023. "Self-uniqueness beliefs and adherence to recommended precautions. A 5-wave longitudinal COVID-19 study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).

    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. Patricia A Champ & Hannah Brenkert‐Smith, 2016. "Is Seeing Believing? Perceptions of Wildfire Risk Over Time," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 816-830, April.
    2. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    3. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    4. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Jeffrey Czajkowski & Hans de Moel, 2019. "Adoption of Individual Flood Damage Mitigation Measures in New York City: An Extension of Protection Motivation Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2143-2159, October.
    5. Yi Yang & Ru-De Liu & Yi Ding & Jia Wang & Wei Hong & Ying Wu, 2021. "The Influence of Communication on College Students’ Self–Other Risk Perceptions of COVID-19: A Comparative Study of China and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    6. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    8. Sebastian Seebauer & Philipp Babcicky, 2020. "The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1967-1982, October.
    9. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Philip Bubeck & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2013. "Response to “The Necessity for Longitudinal Studies in Risk Perception Research”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 760-762, May.
    12. Dula Etana & Denyse J. R. M. Snelder & Cornelia F. A. van Wesenbeeck & Tjard de Cock Buning, 2020. "Dynamics of Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihood Adaptation Decision-Making in Central Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-26, June.
    13. Laura N. Rickard & Z. Janet Yang & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Gina M. Eosco & Clifford W. Scherer & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2017. "Sizing Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2334-2349, December.
    14. Paul Hudson & Annegret H. Thieken, 2022. "The presence of moral hazard regarding flood insurance and German private businesses," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1295-1319, June.
    15. Matthew Billman & Kayode Atoba & Courtney Thompson & Samuel Brody, 2023. "How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Shao, Wanyun & Hao, Feng, 2020. "Confidence in political leaders can slant risk perceptions of COVID–19 in a highly polarized environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    17. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    18. Christel W. van Eck & Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    20. Dingde Xu & Linmei Zhuang & Xin Deng & Cheng Qing & Zhuolin Yong, 2020. "Media Exposure, Disaster Experience, and Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, May.

    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:eee:socmed:v:285:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005992. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.