IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p163-174.html

Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Sepucha

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Aaron Rudkin

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Ryan Baxter-King

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Annette L. Stanton

    (Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry/Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Neil Wenger

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Lynn Vavreck

    (Departments of Political Science and Communication, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Arash Naeim

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    UCLA Center for SMART Health, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background There is limited understanding of how risk perceptions changed as the US population gained experience with COVID-19. The objectives were to examine risk perceptions and determine the factors associated with risk perceptions and how these changed over the first 18 mo of the pandemic. Methods Seven cross-sectional online surveys were fielded between May 2020 and October 2021. The study included a population-weighted sample of 138,303 US adults drawn from a market research platform, with an average 68% cooperation rate. Respondents’ risk perception of developing COVID in the next 30 days was assessed at each time point. We examined relationships between 30-day risk perceptions and various factors (including sociodemographic features, health, COVID-19 experience, political affiliation, and psychological variables). Results COVID risk perceptions were stable across the 2020 surveys and showed a significant decrease in the 2021 surveys. Several factors, including older age, worse health, high COVID worry, in-person employment type, higher income, Democratic political party affiliation (the relatively more liberal party in the United States), low tolerance of uncertainty, and high anxiety were strongly associated with higher 30-d risk perceptions in 2020. One notable change occurred in 2021, in that younger adults (aged 18–29 y) had significantly higher 30-d risk perceptions than older adults did (aged 65 y and older) after vaccination. Initial differences in perception by political party attenuated over time. Higher 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with engaging in preventive behaviors. Limitations Cross-sectional samples, risk perception item focused on incidence not severity. Conclusions COVID risk perceptions decreased over time. Understanding the longitudinal pattern of risk perceptions and the factors associated with 30-d risk perceptions over time provides valuable insights to guide public health communication campaigns. Highlights The study assessed COVID-19 risk perceptions at 7 time points over 18 mo of the pandemic in large samples of US adults. Risk perceptions were fairly stable until the introduction of vaccines in early 2021, at which point they showed a marked reduction. Higher COVID-19 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with the preventive behaviors of masking, limiting social contact, avoiding restaurants, and not entertaining visitors at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Sepucha & Aaron Rudkin & Ryan Baxter-King & Annette L. Stanton & Neil Wenger & Lynn Vavreck & Arash Naeim, 2024. "Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 163-174, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231221448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231221448
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231221448?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine R. Harris & Michael Jenkins & Dale Glaser, 2006. "Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 48-63, July.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Toni M. Rudisill & Lauren Olivia Barbee & Brian Hendricks, 2023. "Characteristics of Fatal, Pedestrian-Involved, Motor Vehicle Crashes in West Virginia: A Cross-Sectional and Spatial Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Sleesman, Dustin J., 2019. "Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 83-96.
    5. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    6. Mary Callaghan & Colette Kelly & Michal Molcho, 2015. "Exploring traditional and cyberbullying among Irish adolescents," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(2), pages 199-206, February.
    7. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    8. Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Katare, Bhagyashree, 2018. "Low-cost approaches to increasing gym attendance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 63-76.
    9. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    10. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    12. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    13. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    14. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," 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(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    15. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    16. Anania, Emily C. & Rice, Stephen & Walters, Nathan W. & Pierce, Matthew & Winter, Scott R. & Milner, Mattie N., 2018. "The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 218-224.
    17. Zhang, Kaige & Pang, Hua, 2026. "How does risk information exposure affect AI-driven technology users’ privacy protection? Combining social amplification of risk framework and technology threat avoidance theory," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    19. Adekunle, Tiwaladeoluwa B., 2024. "US black women’s pregnancy communication networks: A qualitative network analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).
    20. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.