IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p9979-d640971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19 in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Motoko Kosugi

    (College of Engineering, Academic Institute, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu 432-8561, Japan)

Abstract

As of June 2021, there have been more than 13,000 deaths in Japan due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare show that the mortality rate of COVID-19 greatly varies by age. In this study, using data from a questionnaire survey, an investigation was carried out to find differences in anxiety and risk perception, attitudes toward risk, and the frequency of implementation of countermeasures to infection among age groups that are prone to a greater risk of mortality, as well as the main factors that determine the frequency of implementation. Older people, who form a high-risk group, have a stronger tendency for anxiety and cautious attitudes toward COVID-19, and they more frequently implement preventive behaviors. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that the frequency of implementation of behaviors is determined not only by anxiety, cautious attitude, risk of aggravation to oneself, and perceived effectiveness of behaviors but also by regret, altruism, and conformity. In addition, almost no age-based gap was found between the determinants, suggesting that the motivation to take infection preventive behaviors is the same regardless of age.

Suggested Citation

  • Motoko Kosugi, 2021. "Determinants of Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19 in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:9979-:d:640971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/9979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/9979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Zeelenberg, Marcel & Beattie, Jane & van der Pligt, Joop & de Vries, Nanne K., 1996. "Consequences of Regret Aversion: Effects of Expected Feedback on Risky Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 148-158, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2008. "Natural Hazards and Motivation for Mitigation Behavior: People Cannot Predict the Affect Evoked by a Severe Flood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 771-778, 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. Motoko Kosugi, 2022. "Typology and Characteristics of COVID-19 Preventive Measures Implementation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, September.

    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. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    3. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," 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. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    4. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," 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. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    5. Mertens, Kewan & Jacobs, Liesbet & Maes, Jan & Poesen, Jean & Kervyn, Matthieu & Vranken, Liesbet, 2017. "Lower risk reduction intentions among households exposed to landslide risk: a tentative explanation," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261170, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," 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. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Ruud Zaalberg & Cees Midden & Anneloes Meijnders & Teddy McCalley, 2009. "Prevention, Adaptation, and Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1759-1778, December.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Gabriele Prati & Luca Pietrantoni & Bruna Zani, 2011. "A Social‐Cognitive Model of Pandemic Influenza H1N1 Risk Perception and Recommended Behaviors in Italy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 645-656, April.
    13. Elisabeth Maidl & David N. Bresch & Matthias Buchecker, 2021. "Social integration matters: factors influencing natural hazard risk preparedness—a survey of Swiss households," 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(2), pages 1861-1890, January.
    14. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Nanda Kaji Budhathoki & Douglas Paton & Jonatan A. Lassa & Gopal Datt Bhatta & Kerstin K. Zander, 2020. "Heat, cold, and floods: exploring farmers’ motivations to adapt to extreme weather events in the Terai region of Nepal," 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(3), pages 3213-3237, September.
    16. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    17. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2015. "More Than Fear Induction: Toward an Understanding of People's Motivation to Be Well‐Prepared for Emergencies in Flood‐Prone Areas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 518-535, March.
    18. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    19. A. Dana Ménard & Chris Houser & Robert W. Brander & Sarah Trimble & Alexandra Scaman, 2018. "The psychology of beach users: importance of confirmation bias, action, and intention to improving rip current safety," 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. 94(2), pages 953-973, November.
    20. 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.

    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:19:p:9979-:d:640971. 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.