IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v48y2026i2p487-504.html

Relationship Between Knowledge and Compliance With Safety Measures: Evidence From COVID‐19

Author

Listed:
  • Nilufer Cetik
  • Carola Grebitus
  • Lauren Chenarides

Abstract

Compliance with health safety protocols is important for protecting public health, particularly in agricultural sectors where disease outbreaks can disrupt production and market access. Despite its economic significance, we know little about what drives protocol compliance. We examine the relationship between individuals' objective and self‐assessed knowledge and their compliance with safety measures in the context of COVID‐19. We find that greater opposition to COVID‐19 safety protocols is associated with lower objective knowledge and inflated self‐assessed knowledge, indicating overconfidence. Addressing cognitive biases could make public health interventions more effective, with important implications for agricultural settings where resilience depends on consistent protocol adherence.

Suggested Citation

  • Nilufer Cetik & Carola Grebitus & Lauren Chenarides, 2026. "Relationship Between Knowledge and Compliance With Safety Measures: Evidence From COVID‐19," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 487-504, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:48:y:2026:i:2:p:487-504
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.70031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.70031
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.70031?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. David Wuepper & Philipp Wree & Goezde Ardali, 2019. "Does information change German consumers’ attitudes about genetically modified food?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 53-78.
    2. Thomas Hale & Noam Angrist & Rafael Goldszmidt & Beatriz Kira & Anna Petherick & Toby Phillips & Samuel Webster & Emily Cameron-Blake & Laura Hallas & Saptarshi Majumdar & Helen Tatlow, 2021. "A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(4), pages 529-538, April.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. Susan Owens, 2000. "‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(7), pages 1141-1148, July.
    5. Hoffmann, Vivian & Moser, Christine & Saak, Alexander, 2019. "Food safety in low and middle-income countries: The evidence through an economic lens," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    7. Eric Plutzer & A. Lee Hannah, 2018. "Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 305-317, August.
    8. Gould, John P., 1974. "Risk, stochastic preference, and the value of information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 64-84, May.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    10. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    11. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    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. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    2. Eber, Nicolas & François, Abel & Weill, Laurent, 2021. "Gender, age, and attitude toward competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 668-690.
    3. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Liesbeth, Colen & Vincenzina, Caputo, 2025. "Effect of Market-Level Risk Information on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Aflatoxin-Safe Food: Evidence from Unregulated Food Markets in Nigeria," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360883, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Filippin, Antonio & Mantovani, Marco, 2025. "Moral preferences over health-wealth trade-offs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    5. Akinwehinmi, Titilayo & Birgit, Gassler & Ramona, Teuber, 2025. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Genetically Enhanced Foods in Nigeria: The Role of Nutrition and Process Information," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360897, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Shen-Long Yang & Feng Yu & Kai Li & Ting-Ting Rao & Da-Peng Lian, 2022. "No Control, No Consumption: Association of Low Perceived Control and Intention to Accept Genetically Modified Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    7. Kausik Chaudhuri & Subash Sasidharan & Rajesh Seethamma Natarajan Raj, 2020. "Gender, small firm ownership, and credit access: some insights from India," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1165-1181, April.
    8. Ethan A. Meyers & Martin H. Turpin & Michał Białek & Jonathan A. Fugelsang & Derek J. Koehler, 2020. "Inducing feelings of ignorance makes people more receptive to expert (economist) opinion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 909-925, November.
    9. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    10. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Laura Renner & Lena Schmid, 2025. "The decision to flee: exploring gender-specific determinants of international refugee migration," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 38(2), pages 1-34, June.
    12. Galdikiene, Laura & Jaraite, Jurate & Kajackaite, Agne, 2022. "Trust and vaccination intentions: Evidence from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-1.
    13. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    14. Florent Nkouaga & Jeffrey Czajkowski & Kelly Edmiston & Brenda Rourke, 2025. "Modeling Behavioral and Attitudinal Drivers of Life Insurance Selection and Premiums: Polynomial Approaches to Perceived Affordability in Term and Cash Value Products," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-33, September.
    15. Galdikiene, Laura & Jaraite, Jurate & Kajackaite, Agne, 2024. "Effects of cooperative and uncooperative narratives on trust during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Milošević Đorđević, J. & Mari, S. & Vdović, M. & Milošević, A., 2021. "Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    17. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    18. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Jirjahn, Uwe & Chadi, Cornelia, 2016. "Risk Attitude and Nonmarital Birth," IZA Discussion Papers 10316, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.

    More about this item

    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:wly:apecpp:v:48:y:2026:i:2:p:487-504. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    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.