IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p8131-d606284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinant Factors in Personal Decision-Making to Adopt COVID-19 Prevention Measures in Chile

Author

Listed:
  • Karina Fernanda Gonzalez

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Catolica de la Santisima Concepción, Concepcion 4090541, Chile)

  • Maria Teresa Bull

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Catolica de la Santisima Concepción, Concepcion 4090541, Chile
    Observatory of Disaster Management (OGD), Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción 4090541, Chile)

  • Sebastian Muñoz-Herrera

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Catolica de la Santisima Concepción, Concepcion 4090541, Chile)

  • Luis Felipe Robledo

    (Observatory of Disaster Management (OGD), Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción 4090541, Chile
    Engineering Science Department, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 7500971, Chile)

Abstract

The pandemic has challenged countries to develop stringent measures to reduce infections and keep the population healthy. However, the greatest challenge is understanding the process of adopting self-care measures by individuals in different countries. In this research, we sought to understand the behavior of individuals who take self-protective action. We selected the risk homeostasis approach to identify relevant variables associated with the risk of contagion and the Protective Action Decision Model to understand protective decision-making in the pandemic. Subsequently, we conducted an exploratory survey to identify whether the same factors, as indicated in the literature, impact Chile’s adoption of prevention measures. The variables gender, age, and trust in authority behave similarly to those found in the literature. However, socioeconomic level, education, and media do not impact the protection behaviors adopted to avoid contagion. Furthermore, the application of the Protective Action Decision Model is adequate to understand the protective measures in the case of a pandemic. Finally, women have a higher risk perception and adopt more protective measures, and in contrast, young people between 18 and 30 years of age are the least concerned about COVID-19 infection.

Suggested Citation

  • Karina Fernanda Gonzalez & Maria Teresa Bull & Sebastian Muñoz-Herrera & Luis Felipe Robledo, 2021. "Determinant Factors in Personal Decision-Making to Adopt COVID-19 Prevention Measures in Chile," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8131-:d:606284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8131/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8131/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Dryhurst & Claudia R. Schneider & John Kerr & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Gabriel Recchia & Anne Marthe van der Bles & David Spiegelhalter & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 994-1006, August.
    2. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    3. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    3. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    4. Taixiang Duan & Zhonggen Sun & Guoqing Shi, 2021. "Sustained Effects of Government Response on the COVID-19 Infection Rate in China: A Multiple Mediation Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Jinan N. Allan & Joseph T. Ripberger & Wesley Wehde & Makenzie Krocak & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 2020. "Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    6. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    7. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    8. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2017. "Households’ Risk Perceptions in Response to Shale Gas Exploitation: Evidence from China," EfD Discussion Paper 17-13, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    9. Tao Xu & Mengyuan Shao & Ruiquan Liu & Xiaoqin Wu & Kai Zheng, 2023. "Risk Perception, Perceived Government Coping Validity, and Individual Response in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    11. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    12. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    13. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Ali Zackery & Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Zahra Heidari Darani & Shiva Ghasemi, 2022. "COVID-19 Research in Business and Management: A Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-32, August.
    15. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Filimonau, Viachaslau & Högström, Michaela, 2017. "The attitudes of UK tourists to the use of biofuels in civil aviation: An exploratory study," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 84-94.
    17. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Garaus, Marion & Hudáková, Melánia, 2022. "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists’ air travel intentions: The role of perceived health risk and trust in the airline," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.

    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:15:p:8131-:d:606284. 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.