5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Behavioral biases and heuristics in perceptions of COVID‐19 risks and prevention decisions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study adds to an emerging literature on the factors associated with individual perceptions of COVID‐19 risks and decision‐making processes related to prevention behaviors. We conducted a survey in the Netherlands ( = 3600) in June–July 2020 when the first peak of COVID‐19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths had passed, and lockdown measures had been eased. Dutch policies relied heavily on individual prevention behaviors to mitigate a second infection wave. We examine whether biases and heuristics that have been observed in how people perceive and respond to other risks also apply to the newly emergent risks posed by COVID‐19. The results indicate that people simplify risk using threshold models and that risk perceptions are related with personal experiences with COVID‐19 and experiences of close others, supporting the availability heuristic. We also observe that prevention behavior is more strongly associated with COVID‐19 risk perceptions and feelings toward the risk than with local indicators of COVID‐19 risks, and that prevention behavior is related with herding. Support for government lockdown measures is consistent with preferences that may contribute to the not‐in‐my‐term‐of‐office bias. In addition, we offer insights into the role of trust, worry, and demographic characteristics in shaping perceptions of COVID‐19 risks and how these factors relate with individual prevention behaviors and support for government prevention measures. We provide several lessons for the design of policies that limit COVID‐19 risks, including risk communication strategies and appeals to social norms. Perhaps more importantly, our analysis allows for learning lessons to mitigate the risks of future pandemics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

          The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

            This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1

              A protection motivation theory is proposed that postulates the three crucial components of a fear appeal to be (a) the magnitude of noxiousness of a depicted event; (b) the probability of that event's occurrence; and (c) the efficacy of a protective response. Each of these communication variables initiates corresponding cognitive appraisal processes that mediate attitude change. The proposed conceptualization is a special case of a more comprehensive theoretical schema: expectancy-value theories. Several suggestions are offered for reinterpreting existing data, designing new types of empirical research, and making future studies more comparable. Finally, the principal advantages of protection motivation theory over the rival formulations of Janis and Leventhal are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                wouter.botzen@vu.nl
                Journal
                Risk Anal
                Risk Anal
                10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924
                RISA
                Risk Analysis
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0272-4332
                1539-6924
                29 January 2022
                December 2022
                : 42
                : 12 ( doiID: 10.1111/risa.v42.12 )
                : 2671-2690
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Utrecht University School of Economics (U.S.E.) Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                W.J. Wouter Botzen, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1111. 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

                Email: wouter.botzen@ 123456vu.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2833-8030
                Article
                RISA13882
                10.1111/risa.13882
                10078638
                35092967
                7f44a822-fc7e-4775-adfc-5544d1b06f3b
                © 2022 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 December 2021
                : 03 April 2021
                : 21 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 6, Pages: 20, Words: 14722
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                December 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.7 mode:remove_FC converted:06.04.2023

                coronavirus,covid‐19,decision making,heuristics,risk perceptions

                Comments

                Comment on this article