RAPID: Media Exposure, Objective Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Risk Management Preferences of Americans Regarding the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Branden Johnson, Oregon Research Institute; Marcus Mayorga
Version: View help for Version V1
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 02/01/2025 05:23:PM | ||
| S2 | 02/01/2025 05:24:PM | ||
| S3 | 02/01/2025 05:24:PM | ||
| S4 | 02/01/2025 05:25:PM | ||
| S5 | 02/01/2025 05:25:PM | ||
| S6 | 02/01/2025 05:25:PM | ||
|
|
text/plain | 712 bytes | 02/01/2025 02:29:PM |
|
|
text/csv | 7.8 MB | 02/01/2025 12:32:PM |
|
|
application/x-spss-sav | 10.1 MB | 02/01/2025 12:27:PM |
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 1.1 MB | 04/21/2021 01:39:PM |
Project Citation:
Johnson, Branden, and Mayorga, Marcus. RAPID: Media Exposure, Objective Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Risk Management Preferences of Americans Regarding the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2025-02-01. https://doi.org/10.3886/E215382V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Risk analysis has a long history of assessing the antecedents and
outcomes of public risk perceptions, and their mutual relationships, but has
emphasized cross-sectional rather than longitudinal studies as being more
feasible. However, cross-sectional studies not only fail to track the dynamics
of these factors and their relationships over time—which is particularly
crucial in understanding responses to a novel hazard such as that posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic—but they are unable to test even some basic hypotheses for
hazard management, such as whether a person with high risk perceptions at one
time is likely to have enacted protective behaviors at a later time, or that a
person who has adopted several protective behaviors at one time is likely to
have lower risk perceptions at a later time. This does not mean that
cross-sectional studies are useless, only that scholars of risk perceptions
should be doing what they can to increase the number of longitudinal studies
despite their logistical challenges.
This project used a 6-wave U.S. longitudinal panel survey using the Prolific online panel to test how views and behavior regarding personal and collective solutions to what became an emerging pandemic (COVID-19) were affected by various beliefs and attitudes, between persons and within persons over time. This effort built upon both the Protective Action Decision Model (e.g., by including stages of behavior change measures; new measures of threat perception) and the researcher’s prior work (e.g., by generalizing temporal trends across far more measures) to assess how people respond to unexpected zoonoses (diseases that jump the species barrier) in a changing world, and why. By collecting data at roughly two-month intervals between February 2020 (when confirmed SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections in the U.S. were < 50) and April 2021 (when many Americans had been vaccinated), this effort provided a dynamic picture of both changing and unchanging views and reported behaviors and policy support over 14 months.
This project used a 6-wave U.S. longitudinal panel survey using the Prolific online panel to test how views and behavior regarding personal and collective solutions to what became an emerging pandemic (COVID-19) were affected by various beliefs and attitudes, between persons and within persons over time. This effort built upon both the Protective Action Decision Model (e.g., by including stages of behavior change measures; new measures of threat perception) and the researcher’s prior work (e.g., by generalizing temporal trends across far more measures) to assess how people respond to unexpected zoonoses (diseases that jump the species barrier) in a changing world, and why. By collecting data at roughly two-month intervals between February 2020 (when confirmed SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections in the U.S. were < 50) and April 2021 (when many Americans had been vaccinated), this effort provided a dynamic picture of both changing and unchanging views and reported behaviors and policy support over 14 months.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
National Science Foundation (2411612)
Scope of Project
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
United States
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
3/2020 – 2/2025
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
survey data
Methodology
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
Convenience sample
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
web-based self-completion surveys
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
web-based survey
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
individuals
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
United States
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.