Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
Open accessAbstract
By mid-March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spread to over 100 countries and all 50 states in the US. Government efforts to minimize the spread of disease emphasized behavioral interventions, including raising awareness of the disease and encouraging protective behaviors such as social distancing and hand washing, and seeking medical attention if experiencing symptoms. However, it is unclear to what extent individuals are aware of the risks associated with the disease, how they are altering their behavior, factors which could influence the spread of the virus to vulnerable populations. We characterized risk perception and engagement in preventative measures in 1591 United States based individuals over the first week of the pandemic (March 11th-16th 2020) and examined the extent to which protective behaviors are predicted by individuals’ perception of risk. Over 5 days, subjects demonstrated growing awareness of the risk posed by the virus, and largely reported engaging in protective behaviors with increasing frequency. However, they underestimated their personal risk of infection relative to the average person in the country. We found that engagement in social distancing and handwashing was most strongly predicted by the perceived likelihood of personally being infected, rather than likelihood of transmission or severity of potential transmitted infections. However, substantial variability emerged among individuals, and using data-driven methods we found a subgroup of subjects who are largely disengaged, unaware, and not practicing protective behaviors. Our results have implications for our understanding of how risk perception and protective behaviors can facilitate early interventions during large-scale pandemics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Optimism bias can lead people to ignore public health warnings.
“and to therefore ignore public health warnings 11”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [11]
The Discussion links optimism bias and low perceived personal risk to reduced protective behavior, and describes a subgroup disengaged from seeking pandemic information. It does not establish that people with optimism bias ignore public health warnings they receive; it also says public health messages can raise risk awareness. The supplied copy gives no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Lai, C.-C., Shih, T.-P., Ko, W.-C., Tang, H.-J., & Hsueh, P.-R. (2020) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924 · Cited by 6,068 · see citing works
Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19
Bai, Y., Yao, L., Wei, T., Tian, F., Jin, D., Chen, L., & Wang, M. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2565 · Cited by 4,496 · see citing works
Li, R., Pei, S., Chen, B., Song, Y., Zhang, T., Yang, W., & Shaman, J. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb3221 · Cited by 3,633 · see citing works
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004 · Cited by 3,450 · see citing works
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 · Cited by 2,046 · see citing works
Coronavirus Disease 2019–COVID-19
Dhama, K., Sharun, K., Tiwari, R., Sircar, S., Bhat, S., Malik, Y. S., Singh, K. P., Chaicumpa, W., Bonilla‐Aldana, D. K., & Rodriguez-Morales, A. J. (2020) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00028-20 · Cited by 1,917 · see citing works
Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis.
Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0028601 · Cited by 1,389 · see citing works
Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review
Bish, A., & Michie, S. (2010) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1348/135910710x485826 · Cited by 1,232 · see citing works
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
(2009) · International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents · doi:10.1016/s0924-8579(09)00446-4 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & Mobbs, D. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.200742 · Cited by 734 · see citing works
Self-citationUncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour
Kappes, A., Nussberger, A.-M., Faber, N. S., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0372-x · Cited by 79 · see citing works
People at Risk of Influenza Pandemics: The Evolution of Perception and Behavior
Xu, J., & Peng, Z. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144868 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Liao, Q., Wu, P., Lam, W., Cowling, B. J., & Fielding, R. (2018) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2018.1515436 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Sharot T. The optimism bias. Current Biology. 2011 Dec 6;21(23):R941-5.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964 · see citing works
Self-citationFunctional Fear Predicts Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic
Harper, C. A., Satchell, L. P., Fido, D., & Latzman, R. D. (2021) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5 · Cited by 1,564 · see citing works
COVID-19 worries and mental health: the moderating effect of age
Wilson, J. M., Lee, J., & Shook, N. J. (2021) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2020.1856778 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
(2020) · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.5505/kpd.2020.59862 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & mobbs, D.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2020-03-19
- OpenAlex
- W3160761349
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 94
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1911441)
- Wellcome Trust
- National Institute of Mental Health (P2026052, P50MH094258)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, risk perception, protective behavior, social distancing, hand washing, risk underestimation, pandemic response, behavioral interventions, vulnerable populations, early pandemic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
