An official website of the United States government
Cross-sectional surveys, despite their value, are unable to probe dynamics of risk perceptions over time. An earlier longitudinal panel study of Americans’ views on Ebola risk inspired this partial replication on Americans’ views of Zika risks, using multilevel modeling to assess temporal changes in these views and inter-individual factors affecting them, and to determine if similar factors were influential for both non-epidemics in the USA. Baseline Zika risk scores – as in the Ebola study – were influenced by dread of the Zika virus, perceptions of a near-miss outbreak, and perceived likelihood of an outbreak. Judgments of both personal risk and national risk from Zika declined significantly, and individual rates of news following predicted slower decline of perceived national risk in both cases. However, few other factors affected changes in Zika risk judgments, which did not replicate in a validation half-sample, whereas several factors slowed or increased the rate of decline in Ebola judgments of the U.S. risk. These differences might reflect differences in the diseases caused by these two viruses – e.g., Ebola’s much greater lethality – but more longitudinal studies across multiple diseases will be needed to test that speculation. Benefits of such studies to health risk analysis outweigh the difficulties they pose.
more »
« less
Americans’ COVID-19 risk perceptions and risk perception predictors changed over time
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
- PAR ID:
- 10581824
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Risk Research
- Volume:
- 26
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 1366-9877
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 815 to 835
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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 The risks associated with extreme heat are increasing as heat waves become more frequent and severe across larger areas. As people begin to experience heat waves more often and in more places, how will individuals respond? Measuring experience with heat simply as exposure to extreme temperatures may not fully capture how people subjectively experience those temperatures or their varied impacts on human health. These impacts may also influence an individual’s response to heat and motivate risk-reduction behaviors. If subjectively experiencing negative health effects from extreme heat promotes protective actions, these effects could be used alongside temperature exposure to more accurately measure extreme heat experience and inform risk prevention and communication strategies according to local community needs. Using a multilevel regression model, this study analyzes georeferenced national survey data to assess whether Americans’ exposure to extreme heat and experience with its health effects are associated with self-reported protective behaviors. Subjective experience with heat-related health symptoms strongly predicted all reported protective behaviors while measured heat exposure had a much weaker influence. Risk perception was strongly associated with some behaviors. This study focuses particularly on the practice of checking on family, friends, and neighbors during a heat wave, which can be carried out by many people. For this behavior, age, race/ethnicity, gender, and income, along with subjective experience and risk perception, were important predictors. Results suggest that the subjective experience of extreme heat influences health-related behavioral responses and should therefore be considered when designing or improving local heat protection plans.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Understanding human responses to pandemics can improve public health. A survey of US residents (n = 2004) February 28, 2020, very early in the coronavirus pandemic, tested predictors of five “protective” actions: washing hands, wearing masks, avoiding travel, avoiding large public gatherings, and avoiding Asians (given COVID-19’s first appearance in China). We added to the Protective Action Decision Model—positing threat, protective action, and stakeholder perceptions as immediate predictors of intentions—objective and subjective coronavirus knowledge as predictors of these perceptions, and psychological distance to predict threat perceptions. We presumed objective and subjective knowledge were affected by following US and China news about COVID-19. Structural equation modeling indicated adequate fit for this parsimonious model; variance explained in behavioral intentions ranged from .12 (handwashing) to .33 (Asians). Behavioral intentions rose with higher threat, action, and stakeholder (trust) perceptions, psychological distance reduced threat perceptions, objective knowledge reduced threat and action perceptions but increased trust, and subjective knowledge did the opposite. Coronavirus-news following increased both objective and subjective knowledge, but subjective knowledge exhibited stronger associations and US news dominated China news. Moderate model fit and variance explained might reflect model parsimony and/or data collection when US cases were in the low double digits.more » « less
-
Abstract ObjectivesThis study assessed changes in behaviors/attitudes related to the COVID-19. With the understanding that behaviors and vaccine decision-making could contribute to global spread of infectious diseases, this study collected several waves of internet-based surveys from individuals in the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India. The aims of this study were to (1) characterize the relationship between the epidemiology of disease and changes over time in risk perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards hygienic behaviors; (2) examine if risk perceptions affect acceptance of less-than-ideal vaccines; and (3) contrast adherence to public health recommendations across countries which have had different governmental responses to the outbreak. Data descriptionWe conducted cross-sectional online surveys in six countries from March 2020 to April 2021. By the end of June 2021, there will be six waves of surveys for the United States and China, and four waves for the rest of countries. There are common sets of questions for all countries, however, some questions were adapted to reflect local situations and some questions were designed intentionally for specific countries to capture different COVID-19 mitigation actions. Participants were asked about their adherence towards countermeasures, risk perceptions, and acceptance of a hypothetical vaccine for COVID-19.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2208149
