Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 1.3 2区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-02 DOI:10.1007/s11166-022-09375-y
Jesper Akesson, Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Robert Hahn, Robert Metcalfe, Itzhak Rasooly
{"title":"Fatalism, beliefs, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Jesper Akesson, Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Robert Hahn, Robert Metcalfe, Itzhak Rasooly","doi":"10.1007/s11166-022-09375-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known about how people's beliefs concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) influence their behavior. To shed light on this, we conduct an online experiment ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>3</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>610</mn></mrow> </math> ) with US and UK residents. Participants are randomly allocated to a control group or to one of two treatment groups. The treatment groups are shown upper- or lower-bound expert estimates of the infectiousness of the virus. We present three main empirical findings. First, individuals dramatically overestimate the dangerousness and infectiousness of COVID-19 relative to expert opinion. Second, providing people with expert information partially corrects their beliefs about the virus. Third, the more infectious people believe that COVID-19 is, the less willing they are to take protective measures, a finding we dub the \"fatalism effect\". We develop a formal model that can explain the fatalism effect and discuss its implications for optimal policy during the pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":48066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","volume":"64 1","pages":"147-190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161200/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09375-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Little is known about how people's beliefs concerning the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) influence their behavior. To shed light on this, we conduct an online experiment ( n = 3 , 610 ) with US and UK residents. Participants are randomly allocated to a control group or to one of two treatment groups. The treatment groups are shown upper- or lower-bound expert estimates of the infectiousness of the virus. We present three main empirical findings. First, individuals dramatically overestimate the dangerousness and infectiousness of COVID-19 relative to expert opinion. Second, providing people with expert information partially corrects their beliefs about the virus. Third, the more infectious people believe that COVID-19 is, the less willing they are to take protective measures, a finding we dub the "fatalism effect". We develop a formal model that can explain the fatalism effect and discuss its implications for optimal policy during the pandemic.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19大流行期间的宿命论、信仰和行为
人们对 2019 年冠状病毒疾病(COVID-19)的看法如何影响他们的行为,对此我们知之甚少。为了揭示这一问题,我们对美国和英国居民进行了一次在线实验(n = 3 , 610)。参与者被随机分配到对照组或两个治疗组中的一个。处理组的参与者会看到专家对病毒传染性的上限或下限估计。我们提出了三个主要的经验性发现。首先,相对于专家意见,个人会大幅高估 COVID-19 的危险性和传染性。第二,向人们提供专家信息可以部分纠正他们对病毒的看法。第三,人们认为 COVID-19 的传染性越强,就越不愿意采取保护措施,我们将这一发现称为 "宿命效应"。我们建立了一个可以解释宿命论效应的正式模型,并讨论了它对大流行病期间最优政策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.60%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) welcomes original empirical, experimental, and theoretical manuscripts dealing with the analysis of risk-bearing behavior and decision making under uncertainty. The topics covered in the journal include, but are not limited to, decision theory and the economics of uncertainty, experimental investigations of behavior under uncertainty, empirical studies of real world risk-taking behavior, behavioral models of choice under uncertainty, and risk and public policy. Review papers are welcome. The JRU does not publish finance or behavioral finance research, game theory, note length work, or papers that treat Likert-type scales as having cardinal significance. An important aim of the JRU is to encourage interdisciplinary communication and interaction between researchers in the area of risk and uncertainty. Authors are expected to provide introductory discussions which set forth the nature of their research and the interpretation and implications of their findings in a manner accessible to knowledgeable researchers in other disciplines. Officially cited as: J Risk Uncertain
期刊最新文献
Subjective beliefs, health, and health behaviors Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion The gambler’s fallacy prevails in lottery play Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences Reference-dependent discounting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1