IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i18p6589-d411692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Social Support and Social Trust on Public Viral Risk Response: A COVID-19 Survey Study

Author

Listed:
  • Eugene Song

    (Department of Consumer Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea)

  • Hyun Jung Yoo

    (Department of Consumer Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea)

Abstract

Public health has been under continuous threat worldwide in recent years. This study examined the impact of social support and social trust on the activities and efficacy of the public’s risk response in the case of COVID-19. We conducted an online survey over eight days with 620 Korean adult participants. Data were analyzed using structural equation modelling and K-means cluster analysis. Our results showed that public support had a positive impact on response efficacy, while response efficacy had a positive impact on sanitation, distancing, and purchasing activities. In addition, social support positively moderated the impact of public and individual support on response efficacy, while response efficacy negatively moderated the impact on sanitation activities. These results suggest that, first, amid viral risk, governments should proactively supply tools and information for infection-prevention, and deliver messages that encourage and support infection-prevention activities among the public. Second, when viral risk occurs, governments, along with all other members of society, must engage in aggressive risk response measures. Third, there is a need for risk communication that further emphasizes the importance of personal sanitation activities in the face of viral risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene Song & Hyun Jung Yoo, 2020. "Impact of Social Support and Social Trust on Public Viral Risk Response: A COVID-19 Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6589-:d:411692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philipp Babcicky & Sebastian Seebauer, 2017. "The two faces of social capital in private flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 1017-1037, August.
    2. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    3. Jiahe Chen & Yi-Chen Lan & Yu-Wei Chang & Po-Ya Chang, 2019. "Exploring Doctors’ Willingness to Provide Online Counseling Services: The Roles of Motivations and Costs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Laura N. Rickard & Katherine A. McComas & Christopher E. Clarke & Richard C. Stedman & Daniel J. Decker, 2013. "Exploring risk attenuation and crisis communication after a plague death in Grand Canyon," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 145-167, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anita Padmanabhanunni & Tyrone B. Pretorius & Serena Ann Isaacs, 2023. "We Are Not Islands: The Role of Social Support in the Relationship between Perceived Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Psychological Distress," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Eugene Song & Jae-Eun Lee & Seola Kwon, 2021. "Effect of Public Empathy with Infection-Control Guidelines on Infection-Prevention Attitudes and Behaviors: Based on the Case of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    4. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    5. Brownlie, Julie & Howson, Alexandra, 2006. "'Between the demands of truth and government': Health practitioners, trust and immunisation work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 433-443, January.
    6. Peter Modin & Sven Hansson, 2011. "Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 313-324, June.
    7. Chen, Lijun & Parcell, Joe L & Chen, Chao & James, Harvey S. Jr & Xu, Danning, 2016. "Consumer preference for supermarket food sampling in China," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236043, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    9. Eugene Song & Jae-Eun Lee & Seola Kwon, 2021. "Effect of Public Empathy with Infection-Control Guidelines on Infection-Prevention Attitudes and Behaviors: Based on the Case of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Marek Kośny & Maria Piotrowska, 2019. "Economic Resourcefulness: Definition and Modeling," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 425-449, July.
    11. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    12. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    13. Andrew P. Barnes & Amanda Lucas & Gregory Maio, 2016. "Quantifying ambivalence towards sustainable intensification: an exploration of the UK public’s values," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(3), pages 609-619, June.
    14. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    15. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    17. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    18. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    19. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    20. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6589-:d:411692. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.