COVID-19: Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Behavioral Intentions

被引:18
作者
Joslyn, Susan [1 ]
Savelli, Sonia [2 ]
Duarte, Horacio A. [3 ]
Burgeno, Jessica [1 ]
Qin, Chao [1 ]
Han, Jee Hoon [1 ]
Gulacsik, Gala [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Psychol, Guthrie 215,Box 351525, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Human Ctr Design & Engn, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Dept Pediat, Div Infect Dis, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
COVID-19; coronavirus; risk perception; risk communication; protective behavior; FUZZY-TRACE THEORY; PROBABILITY; DECISIONS; JUDGMENTS; SEVERITY; SCIENCE; SYSTEMS; SAMPLE; MODEL; TRUST;
D O I
10.1037/xap0000398
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Critical to limiting the spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and future pandemics is compliance with behavioral recommendations such as mask wearing and social distancing. Compliance may depend upon understanding the seriousness of the health consequences and the likelihood they will occur. However, the statistics that speak to these issues in an ongoing pandemic are complex and may be misunderstood. An online experiment with a U.S. sample tested the impact on perceived likelihood, trust, concern, behavioral intentions, and agreement with government response of numeric (mortality/infection percentage by age group) and gist expressions (which age group was smaller [mortality] or roughly equivalent [infected]). While the differences in risk perception and willingness to engage in activities between younger and older participants were small, "gist infection and mortality" increased willingness to wear a mask among younger participants. Government restrictions (e.g., social distancing) impacted willingness to engage is risk-reduction and risk-seeking activities. The biggest differences were due to political ideology. Although conservatives perceived similar levels of risk as did liberals, they were much less willing to engage in protective behaviors and support government policies. However, conservatives were affected by some risk communication formats and restrictions suggesting that future work should be aimed at this issue.
引用
收藏
页码:599 / 620
页数:22
相关论文
共 66 条
[31]   A perspective on judgment and choice - Mapping bounded rationality [J].
Kahneman, D .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2003, 58 (09) :697-720
[32]  
Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004
[33]   GENERAL CARDIOVASCULAR RISK PROFILE - FRAMINGHAM STUDY [J].
KANNEL, WB ;
MCGEE, D ;
GORDON, T .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1976, 38 (01) :46-51
[34]   The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication [J].
Keller, C ;
Siegrist, M ;
Gutscher, H .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2006, 26 (03) :631-639
[36]   Two Is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories [J].
Keren, Gideon ;
Schul, Yaacov .
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2009, 4 (06) :533-550
[37]  
Koma W., 2020, How many adults are at risk of serious illness if infected with coronavirus? Updated data
[38]   Intuitive and Deliberate Judgments Are Based on Common Principles [J].
Kruglanski, Arie W. ;
Gigerenzer, Gerd .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2011, 118 (01) :97-109
[39]   The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather-Related Decision Making [J].
LeClerc, Jared ;
Joslyn, Susan .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2015, 35 (03) :385-395
[40]   The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence [J].
Lindell, Michael K. ;
Perry, Ronald W. .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2012, 32 (04) :616-632