IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i24p16578-d998972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Association between Cooperative Attitude and High-Risk Behaviors on the Spread of COVID-19 Infection among Medical Students in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Chie Hirama

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Zechen Zeng

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Nobutoshi Nawa

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

  • Takeo Fujiwara

    (Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan)

Abstract

The impact of high-risk behaviors on the spread of COVID-19 infection among young people is an important problem to address. This study analyzed the association between cooperativeness and high-risk behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional study among fourth-year medical students at Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The students were asked about cooperative attitude in a hypothetical situation of performing a task together with an unfamiliar classmate, who did not cooperate to complete the task previously. The response items were as follows: “cooperate”, “don’t want to cooperate and do it alone (non-cooperative)”, and “don’t want to cooperate and let the partner do it alone (punishment)”. Eating out and vaccine hesitancy were also treated as high-risk behaviors. Poisson regression was used to investigate the association between cooperative attitude and each high-risk behavior, adjusted for demographics. Of the 98 students, 23 (23.5%), 44 (44.9%), and 31 (31.6%) students chose “noncooperative”, “cooperative”, and “punishment”, respectively. Cooperative-type students exhibited 2.77-fold (PR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.03–7.46), and punishment-type students exhibited 3.16-fold greater risk of eating or drinking out (PR: 3.16, 95% CI: 1.14–8.75) compared with those of the noncooperative type. Among medical students, the “cooperative” type and “punishment” type comprised the high-risk group for eating out during the pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Chie Hirama & Zechen Zeng & Nobutoshi Nawa & Takeo Fujiwara, 2022. "Association between Cooperative Attitude and High-Risk Behaviors on the Spread of COVID-19 Infection among Medical Students in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16578-:d:998972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16578/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16578/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    2. Edward L. Glaeser & Ginger Z. Jin & Benjamin T. Leyden & Michael Luca, 2021. "Learning from deregulation: The asymmetric impact of lockdown and reopening on risky behavior during COVID‐19," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 696-709, September.
    3. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    4. Caleb Cox & Matthew Jones & Kevin Pflum & Paul Healy, 2015. "Revealed reputations in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(3), pages 441-484, April.
    5. Paul L. Hooper & Hillard S. Kaplan & Adrian V. Jaeggi, 2021. "Gains to cooperation drive the evolution of egalitarianism," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 847-856, July.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    7. Tetsuya Yamamoto & Chigusa Uchiumi & Naho Suzuki & Junichiro Yoshimoto & Eric Murillo-Rodriguez, 2020. "The Psychological Impact of ‘Mild Lockdown’ in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey under a Declared State of Emergency," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Villalonga-Olives, E. & Kawachi, I., 2017. "The dark side of social capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social capital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 105-127.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    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. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    3. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    4. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    5. Thomas Buser, 2016. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3439-3449, December.
    6. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    7. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    8. Tobias Schütze & Philipp C. Wichardt & Philipp Christoph Wichardt, 2023. "A Real Effort vs. Standard Public Goods Experiment: Overall More All-or-Nothing, Lower Average Contributions and Men Become More Selfish in the Effort-Loss Frame," CESifo Working Paper Series 10444, CESifo.
    9. Dohmen, Thomas & Quercia, Simone & Willrodt, Jana, 2018. "Willingness to Take Risk: The Role of Risk Conception and Optimism," IZA Discussion Papers 11642, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Burton-Chellew, Maxwell, 2022. "The restart effect in social dilemmas shows humans are self-interested not altruistic," SocArXiv hgznu, Center for Open Science.
    11. Shambhavi Tiwari & Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig & Ingo Zettler, 2021. "The Dark Factor of Personality and Risk-Taking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    13. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    14. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    15. Sepahvand, Mohammad H & Shahbazian, Roujman & Bali Swain, Ranjula, 2018. "Does revolution change risk attitudes? Evidence from Burkina Faso," Working Paper Series 2019:2, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    16. Islam, Asad & Smyth, Russell & Tan, HongQi Alexis & Wang, Liang C., 2019. "Survey measures versus incentivized measures of risk preferences: Evidence from sex workers' risky sexual transactions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Murong Yang & Laurence S. J. Roope & James Buchanan & Arthur E. Attema & Philip M. Clarke & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2022. "Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 836-858, May.
    18. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2018. "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 31-43.
    19. Rosch, Stephanie D., 2017. "Risk Attitudes of US Agricultural Producers," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258025, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2017. "Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 59-86.

    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:24:p:16578-:d:998972. 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.