IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i12p6090-d1167312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hedonic Risk Preference Associated with High-Risk Behaviors under COVID-19 Pandemic among Medical Students in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Zechen Zeng

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Nobutoshi Nawa

    (Department of Medical Education Research and Development, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Chie Hirama

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Takeo Fujiwara

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

Abstract

Background: Public health measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 have focused on raising awareness and disseminating knowledge. Few considered people’s risk preferences and no measurement was adapted to the context of COVID-19. This study aims (1) to investigate the association between risk preference and risk behaviors and (2) to compare a novel hedonic preference question with traditional risk preference assessment tools in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic among medical students in Japan. Methods: An online survey of fourth-year medical students was conducted. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, household income, and the overconfidence effect were performed to investigate the association. Results: We observed significantly higher odds of high-risk behaviors in general risk preference (odds ratio (OR): 4.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–15.50) and hedonic preference (OR: 6.58; 95% CI: 1.86–23.28) when adjusted, whereas monetary preference showed no significant association. Concerning specific risky behaviors, hedonic preference were significantly associated with four items after adjusting for covariates (“dine out” (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.13–6.85), “go out” (OR: 4.35, 95% CI: 1.65–11.46), “not practicing safety precautions” (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.11–7.04) and “travel” (OR: 4.36, 95% CI: 1.42–13.44)), and general preference in two (“dine out” (OR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.66–14.00) and “go out” (OR: 6.48, 95% CI: 2.07–20.24)). Conclusion: Hedonic and general risk preferences were significantly associated with high-risk behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future application of the novel risk-for-pleasure-seeking preference question is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Zechen Zeng & Nobutoshi Nawa & Chie Hirama & Takeo Fujiwara, 2023. "Hedonic Risk Preference Associated with High-Risk Behaviors under COVID-19 Pandemic among Medical Students in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:12:p:6090-:d:1167312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6090/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6090/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    2. Kettlewell, Nathan, 2019. "Risk preference dynamics around life events," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 66-84.
    3. Hui Zhu & Fumin Deng, 2020. "How to Influence Rural Tourism Intention by Risk Knowledge during COVID-19 Containment in China: Mediating Role of Risk Perception and Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    7. Elena Druică & Fabio Musso & Rodica Ianole-Călin, 2020. "Optimism Bias during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Romania and Italy," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Cipriani, Marco & Angrisani, Marco & Guarino, Antonio & Kendall, Ryan & Ortiz de Zarate Pina, Julen, 2020. "Risk Preferences at the Time of COVID-19: An Experiment with Professional Traders and Students," CEPR Discussion Papers 15108, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    10. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    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. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    2. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    3. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    7. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    8. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    9. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    10. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2016. "Eliciting risk preferences: Firefighting in the field," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    12. Islam, Asad & Smyth, Russell & Tan, HongQi Alexis & Wang, Liang C., 2019. "Survey measures versus incentivized measures of risk preferences: Evidence from sex workers' risky sexual transactions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Mark J. Browne & Verena Jäger & Andreas Richter & Petra Steinorth, 2022. "Family changes and the willingness to take risks," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 187-209, March.
    14. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    15. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    16. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    19. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    20. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, 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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:12:p:6090-:d:1167312. 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.