IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p163-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Sepucha

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Aaron Rudkin

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Ryan Baxter-King

    (Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Annette L. Stanton

    (Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry/Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Neil Wenger

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Lynn Vavreck

    (Departments of Political Science and Communication, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Arash Naeim

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Sciences Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    UCLA Center for SMART Health, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background There is limited understanding of how risk perceptions changed as the US population gained experience with COVID-19. The objectives were to examine risk perceptions and determine the factors associated with risk perceptions and how these changed over the first 18 mo of the pandemic. Methods Seven cross-sectional online surveys were fielded between May 2020 and October 2021. The study included a population-weighted sample of 138,303 US adults drawn from a market research platform, with an average 68% cooperation rate. Respondents’ risk perception of developing COVID in the next 30 days was assessed at each time point. We examined relationships between 30-day risk perceptions and various factors (including sociodemographic features, health, COVID-19 experience, political affiliation, and psychological variables). Results COVID risk perceptions were stable across the 2020 surveys and showed a significant decrease in the 2021 surveys. Several factors, including older age, worse health, high COVID worry, in-person employment type, higher income, Democratic political party affiliation (the relatively more liberal party in the United States), low tolerance of uncertainty, and high anxiety were strongly associated with higher 30-d risk perceptions in 2020. One notable change occurred in 2021, in that younger adults (aged 18–29 y) had significantly higher 30-d risk perceptions than older adults did (aged 65 y and older) after vaccination. Initial differences in perception by political party attenuated over time. Higher 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with engaging in preventive behaviors. Limitations Cross-sectional samples, risk perception item focused on incidence not severity. Conclusions COVID risk perceptions decreased over time. Understanding the longitudinal pattern of risk perceptions and the factors associated with 30-d risk perceptions over time provides valuable insights to guide public health communication campaigns. Highlights The study assessed COVID-19 risk perceptions at 7 time points over 18 mo of the pandemic in large samples of US adults. Risk perceptions were fairly stable until the introduction of vaccines in early 2021, at which point they showed a marked reduction. Higher COVID-19 30-d risk perceptions were significantly associated with the preventive behaviors of masking, limiting social contact, avoiding restaurants, and not entertaining visitors at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Sepucha & Aaron Rudkin & Ryan Baxter-King & Annette L. Stanton & Neil Wenger & Lynn Vavreck & Arash Naeim, 2024. "Perceptions of COVID-19 Risk: How Did People Adapt to the Novel Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 163-174, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231221448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231221448
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231221448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:48-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    2. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    3. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    5. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    7. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    8. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    9. 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).
    10. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    11. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    12. J. A. Giesecke & W. J. Burns & A. Barrett & E. Bayrak & A. Rose & P. Slovic & M. Suher, 2012. "Assessment of the Regional Economic Impacts of Catastrophic Events: CGE Analysis of Resource Loss and Behavioral Effects of an RDD Attack Scenario," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 583-600, April.
    13. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    14. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    15. Chang Liu & Lorraine Eden & Dan Li, 2024. "Violent conflict and multinational enterprises: identifying key frontiers in international business policy research," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(3), pages 260-275, September.
    16. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    17. Samuel A. Markolf & Kelly Klima & Terrence L. Wong, 2015. "Adaptation frameworks used by US decision-makers: a literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 427-436, December.
    18. Willem Van Rensburg & Brian W. Head, 2017. "Climate Change Scepticism: Reconsidering How to Respond to Core Criticisms of Climate Science and Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(4), pages 21582440177, December.
    19. Adam Rose & Tyler Kustra, 2013. "Economic Considerations in Designing Emergency Management Institutions and Policies for Transboundary Disasters," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 446-462, March.
    20. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:163-174. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.