{"title":"The influence of environmental cues on behavioral response: An assessment of the Protective Action Decision Model in the context of COVID‐19","authors":"Amber Silver, Nadia Koratty, Samantha Penta, Lauren Clay","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Protective Action Decision Model has emerged within the literature as a theoretical model with promising predictive ability, particularly in the context of short‐term behavioral response and longer‐term hazard adjustments. However, the applicability of the model in the context of public health hazards is less certain. Accordingly, this research utilizes an online questionnaire instrument disseminated via Qualtrics to residents of New York State at three points in the COVID‐19 pandemic (October 2020, January 2021, and May–June 2021) to examine whether changes to the built environment (i.e., signs requiring masking, signs requiring social distancing, and presence of hand sanitizing stations) influenced threat perceptions (i.e., perception of severity and likelihood of infection), and in turn, behavioral responses (i.e., masking, social distancing, and hand sanitizing) at different points in time. The results demonstrate that changes in the built environment were positively associated with behavioral responses at different points in the pandemic, rather than being mediated through threat perception, as predicted by the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM). The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how these findings may guide future research on environmental cues, threat perceptions, and behavioral response to better understand protective action decision‐making in the context of an ongoing public health hazard.","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Protective Action Decision Model has emerged within the literature as a theoretical model with promising predictive ability, particularly in the context of short‐term behavioral response and longer‐term hazard adjustments. However, the applicability of the model in the context of public health hazards is less certain. Accordingly, this research utilizes an online questionnaire instrument disseminated via Qualtrics to residents of New York State at three points in the COVID‐19 pandemic (October 2020, January 2021, and May–June 2021) to examine whether changes to the built environment (i.e., signs requiring masking, signs requiring social distancing, and presence of hand sanitizing stations) influenced threat perceptions (i.e., perception of severity and likelihood of infection), and in turn, behavioral responses (i.e., masking, social distancing, and hand sanitizing) at different points in time. The results demonstrate that changes in the built environment were positively associated with behavioral responses at different points in the pandemic, rather than being mediated through threat perception, as predicted by the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM). The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how these findings may guide future research on environmental cues, threat perceptions, and behavioral response to better understand protective action decision‐making in the context of an ongoing public health hazard.
期刊介绍:
Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.