Estimating perceptions of the relative COVID risk of different social-distancing behaviors from respondents’ pairwise assessments

Abstract

How do people compare the effectiveness of different social-distancing behaviors in avoiding the spread of viral infection? During the COVID pandemic, we showed 676 online respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel 30 pairs of brief videos of acquaintances meeting. We asked respondents to indicate which video from each pair depicted greater risk of COVID infection. Their choices imply that on average, respondents considered talking 14 min longer to be as risky as standing 1 foot closer, being indoors as standing 3 feet closer, being exposed to coughs or sneezes as 3 to 4 ft closer, greeting with a hug as 7 ft closer, and with a handshake as 5 ft closer. Respondents considered properly masking as protecting the wearer and interlocutor equally, removing the mask entirely or only when talking as standing 4 to 5 ft closer but wearing it under the nose as only 1 to 2 ft closer. We provide weaker evidence on beliefs about the interaction effects of different behaviors. In a more limited, ex post analysis, we find little evidence of differences in beliefs across subpopulations.

Risk perception of healthcare workers in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil

“…When there were few known resources to control the virus, masks were identified as one of the main forms of prevention, even in the absence of visible symptoms. Previous research has demonstrated a positive association between mask usage and increased RP, indicating that individuals recognize its importance in reducing contagion and protecting both themselves and others [ 69 , 70 ]. Additionally, it is also well-known that not only mask usage, but also general preventive behaviors are positively associated with RP.…”

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

“…This can be done by presenting a series of numbers of risks at different distances and/or with pictorial presentations of a person on a distance scale at different distances from a virus source and the risk at the distance shown in each new pictorial presentation. A pictorial representation was used successfully in a study of perceived exposure as a function of distance 7 . The effects of mask on risk reduction can be communicated using the ordinary mask specifications.…”

“…Because people’s behavior is governed by their perceptions, such studies are important for understanding behavior in a pandemic. The present authors are aware of only three studies focused on the problem of distance, exposure and perceived risk; two studies by Svenson et al 5 , 6 , and one study by Heffertz and Rabin 7 . These studies showed that when a person approaches an infected person, the increase in exposure is underestimated because the participants used an incorrect exposure-distance function.…”

“…But reversing the causality, Iachini et al 26 illustrated how people rely on their own anxiety and perception of virus exposure, and not on the actual risk, when they select safe interpersonal distances. Most of the studies comparing distances with and without a mask show that people prefer greater interpersonal distance without than with a mask 7 . In contrast, in a study of pedestrian behavior in Amsterdam, Liebst et al found no differences in interpersonal distance between areas with an area based mandate to wear a mask compared with an area without the mandate 27 .…”