4.7 Article

Risk Perception in a Real-World Situation (COVID-19): How It Changes From 18 to 87 Years Old

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646558

关键词

risk perception; COVID-19; anxiety; emotion; availability heuristic

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN 2017) [201755TKFE]
  2. Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente 2020)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies show that as age increases, the perceived vulnerability to getting COVID-19 decreases while the perceived severity increases. Different predictors explain the perception of risk severity and vulnerability at different ages. Self-reported anxiety over the pandemic is a crucial predictor in explaining risk perceptions in all age groups.
Studies on age-related differences in risk perception in a real-world situation, such as the recent COVID-19 outbreak, showed that the risk perception of getting COVID-19 tends to decrease as age increases. This finding raised the question on what factors could explain risk perception in older adults. The present study examined age-related differences in risk perception in the early stages of COVID-19 lockdown, analyzing variables that can explain the differences in perception of risk at different ages. A total of 1,765 adults aged between 18 and 87 years old completed an online survey assessing perceived risk severity and risk vulnerability of getting COVID-19, sociodemographic status, emotional state, experience relating to COVID-19, and physical health status. Results showed that the older the participants, the lower the perceived vulnerability to getting COVID-19, but the higher the perceived severity. Different predictors explain the perception of risk severity and vulnerability at different ages. Overall, self-reported anxiety over the pandemic is a crucial predictor in explaining risk perceptions in all age groups. Theoretical and practical implications of the empirical findings are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据