IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11581-d914724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Ao Zhang

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Hao Yang

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Zhenlei Tian

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Shuning Tong

    (Emergency Management Department of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830011, China)

Abstract

The evolution of the public perception of the risk in public health emergencies is closely related to risk response behavior. There are few systematic explanations and empirical studies on how the individual receiving the risk information affects the change in the individual risk perception through internal mechanisms in the context of COVID-19. Based on the understanding of the existing research, this paper constructs the evolution model of the public risk perception level based on the limited memory theory and a simulation analysis is performed. The results are as follows: memory rate, association rate, information reception and information stimulation in a single period of time have significant indigenous effects on the risk perception; when the amount of information received and the information stimulus remain unchanged, the public’s risk perception follows a monotonic upward trend, but there is an upper limit function, and the upper limit is determined by the memory rate and association rate, and the influence of the association rate is higher than that of the memory rate; When the amount of information received and the information stimulus changes, the public’s risk perception will also change, and there is a lag effect, which is determined by the memory rate. The impact of the acceptance of the information on the risk perception is greater than that of the information stimulus.

Suggested Citation

  • Ao Zhang & Hao Yang & Zhenlei Tian & Shuning Tong, 2022. "Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-29, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11581-:d:914724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11581/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11581/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    2. Yianis Sarafidis, 2007. "What Have you Done for me Lately? Release of Information and Strategic Manipulation of Memories," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 307-326, March.
    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.
    4. Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "A Memory-Based Model of Bounded Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 735-774.
    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. Fei Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Dingtao Zhao, 2014. "A Quantifiable Risky Decision Model: Incorporating Individual Memory into Informational Cascade," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 537-553, July.
    2. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Li, Xiaolin & Rao, Raghunath Singh & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1149.
    4. Li, Xiaolin & Singh Rao, Raghunath & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113556, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Koster, Paul & Peer, Stefanie & Dekker, Thijs, 2015. "Memory, expectation formation and scheduling choices," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 256-265.
    6. de Roos, Nicolas & Sarafidis, Yianis, 2018. "Momentum in dynamic contests," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 401-416.
    7. Dingde Xu & Wenfeng Zhou & Xin Deng & Zhixing Ma & Zhuolin Yong & Cheng Qin, 2020. "Information credibility, disaster risk perception and evacuation willingness of rural households 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. 103(3), pages 2865-2882, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Page, Lionel & Page, Katie, 2010. "Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 186-198, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    12. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    13. Igor Kopylov & Joshua Miller, 2018. "Subjective beliefs and confidence when facts are forgotten," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 281-299, December.
    14. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Julia S. Becker & Sally H. Potter & Lauren J. Vinnell & Kazuya Nakayachi & Sara K. McBride & David M. Johnston, 2020. "Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: a survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. David V. Pynadath & Bistra Dilkina & David C. Jeong & Richard S. John & Stacy C. Marsella & Chirag Merchant & Lynn C. Miller & Stephen J. Read, 2023. "Disaster world," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 84-117, March.
    17. Malmendier, Ulrike M. & Della Vigna, Stefano, 2002. "Overestimating Self-Control: Evidence from the Health Club Industry," Research Papers 1880, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2005:i:14:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Scott Duke Kominers & Xiaosheng Mu & Alexander Peysakhovich, 2019. "Paying for Attention: The Impact of Information Processing Costs on Bayesian Inference," Working Papers 2019-31, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    20. de Nicola, Francesca & Giné, Xavier, 2014. "How accurate are recall data? Evidence from coastal India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 52-65.
    21. Choi, Sunkyung & Maharjan, Rajali & Hong, Tran Thi Nhat & Hanaoka, Shinya, 2024. "Impact of information provision on tsunami evacuation behavior of residents and international tourists in Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 264-273.

    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:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11581-:d:914724. 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.