Identifying and understanding risk perceptions—“how bad are the harms” to humans or to what they value that people see as potentially or actually arising from entities or events—has been critical for risk analysis, both for its own sake, and for expected associations between risk perceptions and subsequent outcomes, such as risky or protective behavior, or support for hazard management policies. Cross-sectional surveys have been the dominant method for identifying and understanding risk perceptions, yielding valuable data. However, cross-sectional surveys are unable to probe the dynamics of risk perceptions over time, which is critical to do while living in a dynamically hazardous world and to build causal understandings. Building upon earlier longitudinal panel studies of Americans’ Ebola and Zika risk perceptions using multi-level modeling to assess temporal changes in these views and inter-individual factors affecting them, we examined patterns in Americans’ COVID-19 risk perceptions in six waves across 14 months. The findings suggest that, in general, risk perceptions increased from February 2020 to April 2021, but with varying trends across different risk perception measures (personal, collective, affective, affect, severity, and duration). Factors in baseline risk perceptions (Wave 1) and inter-individual differences across waves differed even more: baseline ratings were associated with how immediate the threat is (temporal distance) and how likely the threat would affect people like oneself (social distance), and following the United States news about the pandemic. Inter-individual trend differences were shaped most by temporal distance, whether local coronavirus infections were accelerating their upward trend, and subjective knowledge about viral transmission. Associations of subjective knowledge and risk trend with risk perceptions could change signs (e.g. from positive to negative) over time. These findings hold theoretical implications for risk perception dynamics and taxonomies, and research design implications for studying risk perception dynamics and their comparison across hazards. 
                        more » 
                        « less   
                    
                            
                            COVID-19 risk perception measures: factoring and prediction of behavioral intentions and policy support
                        
                    
    
            Although early concepts of risk perception measures distinguished cognitive from affective items, until recently multi-dimensional taxonomies were absent from risk perception studies, and even more from tests of their association with behavior or policy support. Six longitudinal panel surveys on U.S. COVID-19 views (n = 2004 February 2020, ending April 2021) allowed testing of these relationships among ≤ 10 risk perception items measured in each wave. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed consistent distinctions between personal (conditioning perceived risk on taking further or no further protective action), collective (U.S., global), affective (concern, dread), and severity (estimates of eventual total U.S. infections and deaths) measures, while affect (good-bad feelings) and duration (how long people expect the outbreak to last) did not fit with their assumed affective and severity (respectively) parallels. Collective and affective/affect risk perceptions most strongly predicted both behavioral intentions and policy support for mask wearing, avoidance of large public gatherings, and vaccination, controlling for personal risk perception (which might be partly reflected in the affective/affect effects) and other measures. These findings underline the importance of multi-dimensionality (e.g. not just asking about personal risk perceptions) in designing risk perception research, even when trying to explain personal protective actions. 
        more » 
        « less   
        
    
    
                            - PAR ID:
- 10581823
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Risk Research
- Volume:
- 26
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 1366-9877
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1191 to 1212
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
- 
            
- 
            The Affect Heuristic-Cultural Cognition Theory (AH-CCT) model and the Solution Aversion-based (SA) model both suggest affect, meaning feelings or discrete emotions about a target, mediates associations between ‘culture,’ such as political ideology or cultural biases, and risk responses, such as risk perceptions, protective behaviours, and supportive attitudes towards protective policy. However, the models differ respectively by defining negative affect as directed towards the hazard (‘hazard affect’) or a specific behaviour or policy response (‘solution aversion,’ negative affect about a proposed risk reduction method). We compare these models with longitudinal mediation analysis of U.S. COVID-19 survey data (n = 866 in smallest-sample wave). Solution aversion accounted for more associations of culture with risk perceptions, such as personal risk, collective risk, and risk severity; behaviour and behavioural intentions, regarding mask wearing, avoiding large public gatherings, and vaccination; and support for risk mitigation policies, regarding mask mandates, public gathering bans, and vaccination mandates. Statistically significant direct effects were rare and were mainly for egalitarian cultural bias; indirect effects occurred for egalitarians, political conservatives, and individualists. Implications for further research on risk responses are discussed relative to limited previous work on these affect-mediation models.more » « less
- 
            Two decades ago a research team clarified that cross-sectional associations of risk perceptions and protective behavior can only test an “accuracy” hypothesis: e.g., people with higher risk perceptions at Ti should also exhibit low protective behavior and/or high risky behavior at Ti. They argued that these associations are too often interpreted wrongly as testing two other hypotheses, only testable longitudinally: the “behavioral motivation” hypothesis, that high risk perception at Ti increases protective behavior at Ti+1, and the “risk reappraisal” hypothesis, that protective behavior at Ti reduces risk perception at Ti+1. Further, this team argued that risk perception measures should be conditional (e.g., personal risk perception if one’s behavior does not change). Yet these theses have garnered relatively little empirical testing. An online longitudinal panel study of U.S. residents’ COVID-19 views across six survey waves over 14 months in 2020–2021 tested these hypotheses for six behaviors (hand washing, mask wearing, avoiding travel to infected areas, avoiding large public gatherings, vaccination, and [for five waves] social isolation at home). Accuracy and behavioral motivation hypotheses were supported for both behaviors and intentions, excluding a few waves (particularly in February–April 2020, when the pandemic was new in the U.S.) and behaviors. The risk reappraisal hypothesis was contradicted—protective behavior at one wave increased risk perception later—perhaps reflecting continuing uncertainty about efficacy of COVID-19 protective behaviors and/or that dynamic infectious diseases may yield different patterns than chronic diseases dominating such hypothesis-testing. These findings raise intriguing questions for both perception- behavior theory and behavior change practice.more » « less
- 
            Abstract Understanding the motivation to adopt personal household adaptation behaviors in the face of climate change-related hazards is essential for developing and implementing behaviorally realistic interventions that promote well-being and health. Escalating extreme weather events increase the number of those directly exposed and adversely impacted by climate change. But do people attribute these negative events to climate change? Such subjective attribution may be a cognitive process whereby the experience of negative climate-change-related events may increase risk perceptions and motivate people to act. Here we surveyed a representative sample of 1846 residents of Florida and Texas, many of whom had been repeatedly exposed to hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, facing the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. We assessed prior hurricane negative personal experiences, climate-change-related subjective attribution (for hurricanes), risk appraisal (perceived probability and severity of a hurricane threat), hurricane adaptation appraisal (perceived efficacy of adaptation measures and self-efficacy to address the threat of hurricanes), and self-reported hurricane personal household adaptation. Our findings suggest that prior hurricane negative personal experiences and subjective attribution are associated with greater hurricane risk appraisal. Hurricane subjective attribution moderated the relationship between hurricane negative personal experiences and risk appraisal; in turn, negative hurricane personal experiences, hurricane risk appraisal, and adaptation appraisal were positively associated with self-reported hurricane personal adaptation behaviors. Subjective attribution may be associated with elevated perceived risk for specific climate hazards. Communications that help people understand the link between their negative personal experiences (e.g. hurricanes) and climate change may help guide risk perceptions and motivate protective actions, particularly in areas with repeated exposure to threats.more » « less
- 
            How do cultural biases, trust in government, and perceptions of risk and protective actions influence compliance with regulation of COVID-19? Analyzing Chinese (n = 646) and American public opinion samples (n = 1,325) from spring 2020, we use Grid–Group Cultural Theory and the Protective Action Decision Model to specify, respectively, cultural influences on public risk perceptions and decision-making regarding protective actions. We find that cultural biases mostly affect protective actions indirectly through public perceptions. Regardless of country, hierarchical cultural biases increase protective behaviors via positive perceptions of protective actions. However, other indirect effects of cultural bias via public perceptions vary across both protective actions and countries. Moreover, trust in government only mediates the effect of cultural bias in China and risk perception only mediates the effect of cultural bias in the United States. Our findings suggest that regulators in both countries should craft regulations that are congenial to culturally diverse populations.more » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                    