Is it riskier to meet 100 people outdoors or 14 people indoors? Comparing public and expert perceptions of COVID-19 risk

People have limited capacity to process and integrate multiple sources of information, so how do they integrate multiple contextual risk factors for Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection? In June 2020, we elicited risk perceptions from a nationally representative sample of the public (N = 800) using three psychologically-distinct tasks. Responses were compared to a sample of medical experts who completed the same tasks. Relative to experts, the public perceived lower risk associated with environmental factors (such as whether a gathering takes place indoors or outdoors) and were less inclined to treat risk factors as multiplicative. Our results are consistent with a heuristic simply to "avoid people" and with a coarse (e.g., "safe or unsafe") classification of social settings. A further task, completed only by the general public sample, generated novel evidence that when infection risk competes with risk in another domain (e.g., a different medical risk), people perceive a lower likelihood of contracting the virus. These results inform the policy response to the pandemic and have implications for understanding differences between expert and lay perception of risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Using decision aids to support self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Self-isolation is a vital element of efforts to contain COVID-19. We set out to test whether decision aids can support self-isolation.

DESIGN

We conducted a pre-registered online experiment with a nationally representative sample (n = 500). Three stages tested: (i) whether decision trees help people to decide whether they need to self-isolate; (ii) whether an online planning tool increases people's confidence in their ability to self-isolate; and (iii) whether infographics help people to absorb advice on managing a household in which someone must self-isolate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(i) Accuracy of matching symptom patterns to a response scale for the need to self-isolate; (ii) self-reported confidence in coping with self-isolation; (iii) objective tests of recall and comprehension.

RESULTS

Decision trees improved decisions about when self-isolation was necessary, although participants systematically underestimated the need to self-isolate with less common COVID-19 symptoms (e.g. sore throat, fatigue). The online planning tool increased confidence about coping with self-isolation only among the adults aged under 40. Infographics improved recall and comprehension of how to manage self-isolation.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can be used to support self-isolation during COVID-19. The study also demonstrates how even an emergency public health response can benefit from rapid experimental pre-testing of interventions.

Motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online experiment

RATIONALE

Maintaining social distance during the COVID-19 pandemic can save lives. We therefore set out to test communication strategies to promote social distancing.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to test two novel public health messages against a control message. The first was designed to exploit the "identifiable victim" effect by highlighting the risk of transmission to identifiable vulnerable persons. The second sought to counteract intuitive underestimation of exponential transmission.

METHOD

In total, 500 Irish adults undertook a pre-registered, online experiment. They were randomly assigned to a control group or one of two treatment groups. The control group viewed a current poster that encouraged a 2-m separation between people. The two treatment groups saw posters of similar design, but with narrative messages describing how an individual had infected a specific vulnerable person or multiple other people. Later questions measured intentions to undertake three specific types of social interaction over the coming days and the stated acceptability of three other types of social interaction. Pilot work had identified these six behaviors as "marginal" - people were unsure whether they were advisable.

RESULTS

Participants in the treatment conditions were more cautious about undertaking the behaviors and less accepting of them. This positive effect occurred despite participants rating the treatment posters as likely to be less effective and memorable than the control poster.

CONCLUSIONS

Messages that invoke thoughts of infecting vulnerable people or large numbers of people can motivate social distancing and, hence, help to limit the spread of COVID-19. Stated public evaluations (obtained via focus groups or surveys) may underestimate the actual effectiveness of such emotional messages.

Using Behavioral Science to help fight the Coronavirus

This rapid, narrative review summarizes useful evidence from behavioral science for fighting the COVID-19 outbreak. We undertook an extensive, multi-disciplinary literature search covering five issues: handwashing, face touching, self-isolation, public-spirited behavior, and responses to crisis communication. The search identified more than 100 relevant papers. We find effective behavioral interventions to increase handwashing, but not to reduce face touching. Social supports and behavioral plans can reduce the negative psychological effects of isolation, potentially reducing the disincentive to isolate. Public-spirited behavior is more likely with frequent communication of what is “best for all”, strong group identity, and social disapproval of noncompliance. Effective crisis communication involves speed, honesty, credibility, empathy, and promoting useful individual actions. Risks are probably best communicated through numbers, with ranges to describe uncertainty – simply stating a maximum may bias public perception. The findings aim to be useful not only for government and public health authorities, but for organizations and communities.