IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5504-d558973.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Distance during the COVID-19 Pandemic Reflects Perceived Rather Than Actual Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Tina Iachini

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

  • Francesca Frassinetti

    (Department of Psychology, Università di Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
    Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri-IRCCS di Castel Goffredo, Castel Goffredo, 46042 Mantova, Italy)

  • Francesco Ruotolo

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

  • Filomena Leonela Sbordone

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

  • Antonella Ferrara

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

  • Maria Arioli

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy)

  • Francesca Pazzaglia

    (Department of General Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy)

  • Andrea Bosco

    (Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy)

  • Michela Candini

    (Department of Psychology, Università di Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy)

  • Antonella Lopez

    (Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy)

  • Alessandro Oronzo Caffò

    (Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy)

  • Zaira Cattaneo

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy
    IRCCS Mondino Foundation, 27100 Pavia, Italy)

  • Ferdinando Fornara

    (Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, Università di Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Gennaro Ruggiero

    (Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

Abstract

Interpersonal space (IPS) is the area surrounding our own bodies in which we interact comfortably with other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, keeping larger IPS than usual, along with wearing a face mask, is one of the most effective measures to slow down the COVID-19 outbreak. Here, we explore the contribution of actual and perceived risk of contagion and anxiety levels in regulating our preferred social distance from other people during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. In this study, 1293 individuals from six Italian regions with different levels of actual risk of infection participated in an online survey assessing their perceived risk to be infected, level of anxiety and IPS. Two tasks were adopted as measures of interpersonal distance: the Interpersonal Visual Analogue Scale and a questionnaire evaluating interpersonal distance with and without face mask. The results showed that the IPS regulation was affected by how people subjectively perceived COVID-19 risk and the related level of anxiety, not by actual objective risk. This clarifies that the role of threat in prompting avoidant behaviors expressed in increased IPS does not merely reflect environmental events but rather how they are subjectively experienced and represented.

Suggested Citation

  • Tina Iachini & Francesca Frassinetti & Francesco Ruotolo & Filomena Leonela Sbordone & Antonella Ferrara & Maria Arioli & Francesca Pazzaglia & Andrea Bosco & Michela Candini & Antonella Lopez & Aless, 2021. "Social Distance during the COVID-19 Pandemic Reflects Perceived Rather Than Actual Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5504-:d:558973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5504/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5504/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    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. Francesco Ruotolo & Gennaro Ruggiero & Zaira Cattaneo & Maria Arioli & Michela Candini & Francesca Frassinetti & Francesca Pazzaglia & Ferdinando Fornara & Andrea Bosco & Tina Iachini, 2023. "Psychological Reactions during and after a Lockdown: Self-Efficacy as a Protective Factor of Mental Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Akhtar, Naeem & Ittefaq, Huma & Siddiqi, Umar Iqbal & Islam, Tahir & Hameed, Zahid & Kuzior, Aleksandra, 2024. "Zero-COVID and retail: Using multi-wave data to examine the role of perceived risk and psychological factors in shopping abandonment," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    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. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    2. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    4. Joseph P. Reser & Graham L. Bradley, 2020. "The nature, significance, and influence of perceived personal experience of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    5. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    7. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Florian Justwan & Bert Baumgaertner & Juliet E Carlisle & Emma Carson & Jordan Kizer, 2019. "The effect of trust and proximity on vaccine propensity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    13. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    14. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    15. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    16. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    18. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    19. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    20. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    21. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.

    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:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5504-:d:558973. 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.