Without a mask: Judgments of Corona virus exposure as a function of inter personal distance

Svenson, Ola; Appelbom, Sophia; Mayorga, Marcus; Öjmyr, Torun Lindholm

doi:10.1017/s1930297500008111

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…( 1 ). It is based on an earlier model for virus exposure presented by Svenson et al 5 . Risk of virus infection, Epv is a function of virus emission E, distance to source D , and exposure time t. The exponent n describes the rate at which risk decreases with distance, and a is a constant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a person who applies a linear model, n = 1.0 will judge the exposure to be 1.8/0.6 = 3 times the initial exposure after the approach. The study by Svenson et al 5 on perceived exposure showed that a number of participants used a linear model, joining the majority of the participants who underestimated the change of exposure following both approach and withdrawal from an infected person. It should be noted that the proportionality of exposure with time assumes a free ventilated space with no draft.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Svenson,

Isohanni,

Salo

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants judged the risk of an infection during a face to face conversation at different interpersonal distances from a SARS-CoV-2 infected person who wore a face mask or not, and in the same questionnaire answered questions about Corona related issues. Keeping a distance to an infected person serves as a protective measure against an infection. When an infected person moves closer, risk of infection increases. Participants were aware of this fact, but underestimated the rate at which the risk of infection increases when getting closer to an infected person, e.g., from 1.5 to 0.5 m (perceived risk increase = 3.33 times higher, objective = 9.00 times higher). This is alarming because it means that people can take risks of infection that they are not aware of or want to take, when they approach another possibly virus infected person. Correspondingly, when an infected person moves away the speed of risk decrease was underestimated, meaning that people are not aware of how much safer they will be if they move away from an infected person. The perceived risk reducing effects of a face mask were approximately correct. Judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances (with or without a mask) were unrelated to how often a person used a mask, avoided others or canceled meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Greater worry in general and in particular over COVID-19, correlated positively with more protective behavior during the pandemic, but not with judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances. Participants with higher scores on a cognitive numeracy test judged mask efficiency more correctly, and women were more worried and risk avoiding than men. The results have implications for understanding behavior in a pandemic, and are relevant for risk communications about the steep increase in risk when approaching a person who may be infected with an airborne virus.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Svenson,

Isohanni,

Salo

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 replicates Ref. 1 and adds time of a conversation but does not trade time against distance as we do. Luckman et al ( 3 ) ask online UK respondents to place themselves at the closest distance they would keep from a stranger, on a diagram representing figures with or without masks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“… § The closest existing studies we found investigate research questions different from ours and do not use videos. Svenson et al ( 1 ) ask online US respondents: “Assume that two persons are in a face to face conversation ... what percentage of the airborne viruses reaching a person at 2 ft will reach a person at 4 feet?” with a similar question for a decrease in distance. They find that relative to their reading of the existing evidence, respondents underestimate the effects on exposure of moving closer and away from another person.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Heffetz

Rabin

2023

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Perceived Corona virus exposure as a function of interpersonal distance and time of a conversation

Svenson

2022

Discov Soc Sci Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic people were asked to keep interpersonal distance, wash their hands and avoid gatherings of people. But, do people understand how much a change of the distance to a virus infected person means for the exposure to that person’s virus? To answer this question, we studied how people perceive virus exposure from an infected person at different distances and lengths of a conversation. Method An online questionnaire was distributed to 101 participants drawn from the general US population. Participants judged perceived virus exposure at different interpersonal distances to an infected person in a face to face conversation of different lengths of time. A model based on empirical and theoretical studies of dispersion of particles in the air was used to estimate a person’s objective virus exposure during different times and distances from a virus source. The model and empirical data show that exposure changes with the square of the distance and linearly with time. Results A majority (78%) of the participants underestimated the effects on virus exposure following a change of interpersonal distance. The dominating bias was assuming that exposure varies linearly with distance. To illustrate, an approach to a virus source from 6 to 2 feet was judged to give a 3 times higher exposure but, objectively it is 9 times. By way of contrast, perceptions of exposure as a function of the duration of a conversation were unbiased. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV2 virus is likely to be followed by other pandemics also caused by airborne Corona or other viruses. Therefore, the results are important for administrators when designing risk communications to the general public and workers in the health care sector about social distancing and infection risks. Conclusions People quite drastically underestimate the increase in virus exposure following an approach to a virus infected person. They also overestimate exposure after a move away from an infected person. For public health reasons, the correct function connecting distance with virus exposure should be communicated to the general public to avoid deliberate violations of recommended interpersonal distances.

show abstract

Without a mask: Judgments of Corona virus exposure as a function of inter personal distance

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

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

Perceived Corona virus exposure as a function of interpersonal distance and time of a conversation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About