Risk Perceptions and Private Protective Behaviors: Evidence from COVID-19 Pandemic^*

2.1 Survey design

In the very early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a survey instrument aiming to evaluate knowledge about COVID-19 and daily behaviors among people in the United States. The survey was administered by Westat, a survey research firm, between May 7 and May 26. Researchers at Westat randomly selected 13,590 residential addresses across the U.S. and mailed them an invitation to participate in an on-line survey. The addresses were selected from the Delivery Sequence File maintained by the U.S. Postal Service through an authorized vendor.

The invitation letter included a $1 cash incentive and told respondents they had the opportunity to contribute to policy development related to the COVID-19 pandemic and that they would receive $5 for completing the survey. To accommodate within-household sampling for addresses with multiple adult residents, the invitation letter randomly included instructions for the youngest male, oldest male, youngest female, or oldest female in the household to complete the survey. Alternate instructions asked either the oldest or youngest adult of the opposite sex to complete the survey if there were no males/females in the household. The invitation included a link to a website and a participant code that the respondents used to access the on-line survey. After completing the survey, the respondents were asked to provide their mailing address if they wanted to receive the $5 honorarium. Honoraria were mailed on June 5, 2020. 1,222 out of 13,590 individuals completed the survey—a response rate of 10% after accounting for non-deliverable addresses.

The survey contained questions about the risk of contracting the virus and behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic across several domains, which we elicited using visual aids (Delavande 2014). Appendix A.2 shows the key questions from the survey instrument. We asked respondents to indicate whether there were directions from their governor or officials to stay or home or shelter in place. For all respondents, we asked how the time they spent on activities such as grocery shopping and dining in restaurants had changed since before the pandemic. For those responding that there were SIP restrictions active at the time of the survey, we asked how the time they spent on each activity would have changed if there had been no directions to stay at home. For those without SIP restrictions, we asked how their behaviors would have changed if restrictions had been in place. As 92% of survey respondents indicated that a SIP policy was active in their area of residence, we focus only on this group of individuals in our empirical analysis.⁶

2.2 Empirical Specifications

Private Beliefs and the Choice of Preventive Behaviors

Our survey asked respondents to report how much more or less they went grocery shopping, used personal services, ate in a restaurant, saw movies in a theater, or used shared transportation since the beginning of the pandemic. The response categories for each activity included: 1) decreased a lot (by more than 50%), 2) decreased somewhat (by less than 50%), 3) has not changed, 4) increased somewhat (by less than 50%), 5) increased a lot (by more than 50%), 6) I didn’t do this before the pandemic.

For our baseline analysis of the relationship between beliefs and behaviors we create a simple indicator variable for the respondent having reduced an economic activity by a lot (more than 50%). Then, for each activity a we estimate a linear probability model:

Where, Y ^a_i(c) is an indicator that takes a value of 1 of individual i living in county c reduced activity a by more than 50% (”by a lot”), Risk_i^a is a continuous variable between 0 and 1 that measures the subjective probability of contracting COVID-19 if the individual performed activity a as well as the index of beliefs about disease severity. We include the index of beliefs about disease severity in a regression for each activity a, as beliefs about severity conditional on contracting the disease are not activity-specific. The vector of control variables X_c(i) includes the number of days since the SIP order had been enacted to capture the idea of “SIP fatigue” that may have varied geographically depending on the timing of SIPs. Because perceptions about the underlying level of risk vary widely across individuals, X_c(i) also includes beliefs about the risk of infection when staying at home in all specifications. This adjusts for the baseline differences in risk perception levels. The coefficients of interest are β^a that measure how much more or less likely individuals were to undertake an economic activity a if they had a one percentage point higher subjective assessment of COVID-19 risk.

We report several variations of this baseline specification in the Appendix to test the sensitivity of our results. Appendix Table A.1 reports an ordinal regression model that does not collapse responses into one indicator variable for “reducing activity by a lot.” In Appendix Table A.2 we report the results of the baseline regression using a sub-sample that excludes individuals who reported not participating in an activity before the pandemic. Appendix Table A.3 reports a specification that differences the risk of staying at home from the risk of other activities at the individual level instead of including is as the control variable. And Appendix Table A.4 reports a version of the baseline specification that includes the belief about the risk of dying only rather than the severity index. Qualitatively, the results of all these analyses are similar to the baseline.

Perceived Role of Public Policies

To assess the role of public policies in mediating the relationship between beliefs and behaviors, we asked respondents to report how much they believe they would have changed their behavior in a hypothetical scenario without a SIP order. By comparing responses in the hypothetical scenario to the reports of the actual behavioral change, we can assess how much importance individuals ascribe to the SIP policy.

We re-estimate 150 Equation 3 using responses to the hypothetical scenario. We then compare the behavior-belief elasticity as captured by β₁ between the observed and the counterfactual regime. A lower counterfactual elasticity would suggest that individuals believe that government intervention is attenuating the effect of their own risk assessment on decision-making, while a higher counterfactual elasticity would suggest that policy interventions and beliefs are complements. In the limit, a policy intervention that removes any association between subjective beliefs and behaviors (as, for instance, would be the case if all individuals were forced to stay at home) would homogenize behavioral responses of agents with heterogeneous beliefs. This intuition about the role of government mandate as an equalizer of behavioral responses across individuals with different beliefs applies to many settings outside of the infectious disease environment. For instance, a government mandate to pay into any type of social insurance program equalizes coverage purchase decisions across individuals with different beliefs about risks.

3.1 Summary Statistics

1,365 individuals started our survey, and 1,222 individuals completed it. Our analytic sample is comprised of 1,127 individuals (92.2%) who reported being subject to an active SIP order at the time of the survey. Table 1 reports the summary statistics for this analytic sample. While the original survey was mailed to a nationally representative draw of postal addresses, which individuals decided to respond to the survey is not random.⁸ We weight the summary statistics with survey weights to account for nonrandom non-response based on observable characteristics. The average age of respondents is 47. 49% of individuals are male. 16% are Hispanic individuals while 9% are non-Hispanic Black individuals. 53% are married, 31% have a Bachelor’s degree or above, and 55% reported having at least one underlying chronic health condition among hypertension, diabetes, depression or anxiety, heart disease, a respiratory disease, kidney disease, or an autoimmune disorder. 28% reported to be an essential worker.

3.2 Heterogeneity in Subjective Beliefs

Figure 1 plots the distributions of probability elicitations for contracting COVID-19 while engaging in different types of economic activities as well as beliefs about disease severity (Appendix Figure A.1 reports the distributions of each component of the severity index separately). Several facts are apparent from these data.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Distribution of Beliefs about Infection Risk

First, people vastly overestimated the risk of contracting COVID-19 on average (as is common in surveys eliciting subjective probabilities, see Hurd 2009; Belot et al. 2020), as well as the risk of dying from the disease.⁹ An average respondent believed there was a 40% risk of contracting COVID-19 when going grocery shopping and a 29% chance of dying from COVID conditional on contracting the virus. These belief elicitations were collected in May 2020. In May, the number of cumulative COVID-19 cases in the US was approaching 2 million (AJMC.com 2020), while the 7-day moving average of new cases oscillated between 20,000 and 25,000 people. The case fatality rate for known infections, and hence likely in itself a substantially upward biased measure of the true mortality risk, was around 6% during May 2020 (Ritchie et al. 2020). In short, the objective risk of contracting the disease was substantially lower than what survey respondents believed. Second, individual beliefs were highly heterogeneous, spanning the full support of the probability measure. As is common in the subjective belief elicitation data (Kleinjans and Soest 2014), we observe a concentration of responses around the focal point of 50% probability (15% to 30% of responses) for all categories of risk; however, substantial mass of the distribution also lies both to the left and to the right of 50%. Finally, while individuals overestimate risk levels, the within-individual rankings of risks were intuitive and consistent with contemporaneous public reports. As we show in Figure 4 and Appendix Figure A.2, respondents believed that staying at home was the lowest risk activity and that death was the least likely outcome.

Figure 2 examines whether heterogeneity across individuals in their risk beliefs correlates with heterogeneity in their objective risk. Appendix Table A.6 reports the tabular version of the same regression output. For each demographic variable, Panel A of Figure 2 presents the estimates of α₁^a from Equation 1 for activities a ∈ (risk movies, restaurant, transport, service, grocery). The point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for these activities are marked in shades of blue. Several patterns emerge. First, men believe that they face a lower risk of infection than women when performing any activity. Second, Hispanic respondents believe that they face a higher risk of contracting an infection than white respondents. Non-Hispanic Black respondents also report higher perceived risk of infection (although we lack statistical power to conclude that this difference is significant). Third, people with pre-existing health conditions believe that they have a higher probability of infection. Dark grey markers and confidence intervals report the estimate of α₁^a from Equation 1 for the index measure of individuals’ beliefs about serious disease complications if infected as the outcome variable. Older individuals, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and those with pre-existing health conditions all believe that they are more likely to experience serious complications if infected. By contrast, individuals with a Bachelor’s degree or higher believe that they are less likely to have a more severe disease course.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Subjective Risk Beliefs and Risk Exposure

In Panel B of Figure 2, we examine the relationship between area-level prevalence and risk beliefs. While the estimates are imprecise, they are generally positive and represent a substantive effect. For example, a change from the 25th to the 75th percentile in COVID-19 cases (2.24 per 1,000) is associated with an increase of 0.11 in the subjective probability of infection when going to a restaurant, representing a 22 percent increase relative to the mean (0.51).

In most cases, these findings are consistent with the epidemiologic evidence on the relationship between demographic characteristics and COVID-19 risk. In particular, Hispanic and Black Americans seem to be correctly aware of their heightened risk in the incidence and severity of COVID-19 relative to other demographic groups (Ogedegbe et al. 2020; Muñoz-Price et al. 2020; Van Dyke et al. 2021). The perceptions of heightened risk among racial and ethnic minorities are also consistent with other COVID-19 studies (Alsan et al. 2020; Nino et al. 2021; Reiter and Katz 2021). In the case of age, we find no evidence of a positive age gradient in the belief of infection risk, despite dramatically higher rates of recorded infection among older adults during the time period of our study (CDC 2020). Instead, those 60 and older in our sample consider themselves having a higher probability of complications conditional on infection than younger groups, consistent with observed risk (O’Driscoll et al. 2021). Our results directly contrast those of Bordalo et al. 2020 who report that older adults report a lower probability of death or hospitalization conditional on COVID-19 infection but are more consistent with those of other COVID-specific studies (Nino et al. 2021; Wise et al. 2020). Gender differences in perceived risk, in contrast, are less consistent with documented disease patterns—while men have been documented to be at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and have worse outcomes (O’Driscoll et al. 2021), in our survey they consistently report lower risk of becoming infected than women. This type of “overconfidence” is consistent with a large body of literature documenting overconfidence in risk perceptions among men (Finucane et al. 2000) as well as studies specific to the COVID-19 pandemic (Nino et al. 2021; Dryhurst et al. 2020; Fan et al. 2020; Galasso et al. 2020). The geographic and demographic heterogeneity patterns, as well as the within-individual ranking of risks, suggest that even though individuals overestimate the overall level of risk, their subjective beliefs often contain correct signals about the direction of relative risks.

3.3 Private Beliefs and the Choice of Preventive Behaviors

Figure 3 presents descriptive evidence of the extent to which people reduced activities under policies restricting activity and what they reported they would have done in the absence of those policies. People reported relatively large activity reductions in the presence of a SIP order. 40 percent of people reported reducing their activity by a lot for grocery shopping, while 79 percent of people reported reducing their activity by a lot for restaurant visits, consistent with grocery shopping being a more essential activity. The figure also shows the choice of activity reductions that individuals believe they would have made absent SIP orders. The reported reduction in activity is substantially smaller than under SIP policies, but it is far from zero. Between 21% (for shared transportation) and 32% (for restaurants) of individuals report that they would have reduced the respective activities by a lot even in the absence of a formal SIP order. Thus, individuals clearly believe that SIP orders constrain their private choices, but they also believe that they would have undertaken substantial private preventive investments in the absence of government interventions.¹⁰

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Distribution of Changes in Economic Activity

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Rank Order of Beliefs about COVID-19 Severity Risk

In Table 2, we report the estimates of β₁ in Equation 3 for self-reported reductions in activity under existing SIP orders. Those believing that the infection risk associated with individual activities was greater were more likely to reduce those specific activities. For example, a 10 percentage point (19% relative to the mean of 51.5 percentage points as reported in Figure 1) increase in the perceived probability of infection risk from eating in a restaurant is associated with a 2.5 percentage point increase in the probability that a respondent reduced restaurant visits by a lot (this corresponds to a 3.1% increase relative to the average probability of reducing restaurant activity by a lot, which was 79% in the sample as reported in Table 2). The estimate implies a behavior-belief elasticity of 0.16 for restaurant visits—a one percent increase in the subjective risk from a restaurant visit is associated with a 0.16 percent increase in the probability of reducing restaurant visits by a lot. The elasticity is also positive for the other activities we examined (ranging from 0.02 for movie theater to 0.20 for shared transportation), but less precise, lacking the statistical power to reject a zero elasticity at conventional confidence levels.

Taken together, our results are consistent with the existence of a non-zero prevalence elasticity between the true risk and behavioral decisions (Philipson 2000; Oster 2018) that is mediated through changes in risk beliefs. Above, we found that individuals who live in areas with a higher prevalence of risk report higher subjective risk elicitations. Here, we observe that having a higher subjective risk assessment is correlated with a stronger reduction in economic activity. The two results together imply that we would expect individuals in areas with a higher prevalence of risk to undertake more preventive behaviors and reduce their economic activities more. In Appendix Table A.7 we measure the prevalence elasticity directly by correlating the geographic prevalence of COVID and the extent of economic activity reduction as reported by our survey respondents. We find that individuals in areas with a higher prevalence of COVID-19 were more likely to reduce their economic activity. The elasticity estimates (which measure the percent change in the probability of reducing an activity by a lot in response to a one percent higher prevalence of infections) range from 0.03 for movies, restaurants, and grocery shopping to 0.17 for shared transportation in the presence of government policies restricting economic activity.¹¹

3.4 Perceived Role of Public Policies

In the second column of each column-pair in Table 2 we re-estimate the relationship between risk beliefs and privately-preferred activity reductions that respondents believe they would have chosen absent the SIP orders. In general, this counterfactual relationship is markedly stronger than the one under existing SIP orders. This is particularly true for more ‘discretionary’ services. For example, the point estimate for the relationship between risk beliefs and behavior is more than twice as large for the use of personal services in the absence of SIP (0.40) than when SIP is in place (0.16). Differences in the estimates of the relationship between perceived risk of infection and behavior reduction are statistically significant with a p-value for a two-sided test of < 0.1 for movies, restaurants, and services.¹²

As with belief-behavior relationship, the relationship between geographic prevalence of disease and activity reduction is stronger for the hypothetical scenario of no policy intervention. We estimate higher hypothetical prevalence elasticities for all economic activities, ranging from 0.11 for restaurants and personal services to 0.21 for shared transportation. Higher belief-behavior and prevalence elasticities that we estimate for the counterfactual scenarios without “directions from your governor or other officials to stay at home or shelter-in-place” orders are consistent with individuals believing that public policy interventions are in fact constraining their private choices. Respondents believe that in the absence of SIP policies their own subjective beliefs about risk would have played a more important role in driving their behavioral choices.

3.5 Risk of Infection versus Risk of Severe Disease

The relationship between the perceived risk of a poor outcome conditional on infection and activity reductions also differs depending on whether SIP is in place. In the absence of SIP policies, we find no statistically significant association between activity reductions and beliefs regarding risk of complications for each activity, with the exception of grocery shopping. For grocery shopping, people who believe they are likely to experience complications if infected are more likely than those who perceive the risk to be low to reduce this activity a lot. By contrast, in the presence of SIP policies, those who believe that they face a greater risk of a serious complication if infected are less likely to reduce several activities by a lot. In other words, those at high risk of a poor outcome conditional on infection are more likely to maintain or increase the extent to which they go to a sit down restaurant and go to a movie theater than those who perceive themselves at lower risk. This is consistent with people with high perceived health risk reducing their protective behaviors relative to those with lower perceived risk when policies create a less risky environment. While this relationship differs for grocery shopping, we note that grocery shopping is typically exempt from SIP policies. Thus, the implementation of SIP is unlikely to reduce the risk associated with this activity.