IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11581-d914724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Ao Zhang

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Hao Yang

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Zhenlei Tian

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Shuning Tong

    (Emergency Management Department of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830011, China)

Abstract

The evolution of the public perception of the risk in public health emergencies is closely related to risk response behavior. There are few systematic explanations and empirical studies on how the individual receiving the risk information affects the change in the individual risk perception through internal mechanisms in the context of COVID-19. Based on the understanding of the existing research, this paper constructs the evolution model of the public risk perception level based on the limited memory theory and a simulation analysis is performed. The results are as follows: memory rate, association rate, information reception and information stimulation in a single period of time have significant indigenous effects on the risk perception; when the amount of information received and the information stimulus remain unchanged, the public’s risk perception follows a monotonic upward trend, but there is an upper limit function, and the upper limit is determined by the memory rate and association rate, and the influence of the association rate is higher than that of the memory rate; When the amount of information received and the information stimulus changes, the public’s risk perception will also change, and there is a lag effect, which is determined by the memory rate. The impact of the acceptance of the information on the risk perception is greater than that of the information stimulus.

Suggested Citation

  • Ao Zhang & Hao Yang & Zhenlei Tian & Shuning Tong, 2022. "Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-29, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11581-:d:914724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11581/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11581/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    2. Yianis Sarafidis, 2007. "What Have you Done for me Lately? Release of Information and Strategic Manipulation of Memories," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 307-326, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 735-774.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fei Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Dingtao Zhao, 2014. "A Quantifiable Risky Decision Model: Incorporating Individual Memory into Informational Cascade," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 537-553, July.
    2. de Roos, Nicolas & Sarafidis, Yianis, 2018. "Momentum in dynamic contests," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 401-416.
    3. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Li, Xiaolin & Rao, Raghunath Singh & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1149.
    5. Dingde Xu & Wenfeng Zhou & Xin Deng & Zhixing Ma & Zhuolin Yong & Cheng Qin, 2020. "Information credibility, disaster risk perception and evacuation willingness of rural households in China," 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. 103(3), pages 2865-2882, September.
    6. Koster, Paul & Peer, Stefanie & Dekker, Thijs, 2015. "Memory, expectation formation and scheduling choices," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 256-265.
    7. Li, Xiaolin & Singh Rao, Raghunath & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113556, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. 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.
    9. Page, Lionel & Page, Katie, 2010. "Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 186-198, February.
    10. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    13. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2018. "Guns, Environment, and Abortion: How Single-Minded Voters Shape Politicians' Decisions," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-15, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    14. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    15. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.
    16. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.
    17. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    18. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2020. "Memory, Attention, and Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1399-1442.
    19. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    20. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2015. "A Testable Theory of Imperfect Perception," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 184-202, February.

    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:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11581-:d:914724. 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.