Hedonic Risk Preference Associated with High-Risk Behaviors Under COVID-19 Pandemic Among Medical Students in Japan

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2023 Jun 28

PMID 37372677

Authors

Zechen Zeng

Nobutoshi Nawa

Chie Hirama

Takeo Fujiwara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Public health measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 have focused on raising awareness and disseminating knowledge. Few considered people's risk preferences and no measurement was adapted to the context of COVID-19. This study aims (1) to investigate the association between risk preference and risk behaviors and (2) to compare a novel hedonic preference question with traditional risk preference assessment tools in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic among medical students in Japan.

Methods: An online survey of fourth-year medical students was conducted. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, household income, and the overconfidence effect were performed to investigate the association.

Results: We observed significantly higher odds of high-risk behaviors in general risk preference (odds ratio (OR): 4.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-15.50) and hedonic preference (OR: 6.58; 95% CI: 1.86-23.28) when adjusted, whereas monetary preference showed no significant association. Concerning specific risky behaviors, hedonic preference were significantly associated with four items after adjusting for covariates ("dine out" (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.13-6.85), "go out" (OR: 4.35, 95% CI: 1.65-11.46), "not practicing safety precautions" (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.11-7.04) and "travel" (OR: 4.36, 95% CI: 1.42-13.44)), and general preference in two ("dine out" (OR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.66-14.00) and "go out" (OR: 6.48, 95% CI: 2.07-20.24)).

Conclusion: Hedonic and general risk preferences were significantly associated with high-risk behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future application of the novel risk-for-pleasure-seeking preference question is warranted.

References

VanKim N, Nelson T . Vigorous physical activity, mental health, perceived stress, and socializing among college students. Am J Health Promot. 2013; 28(1):7-15. PMC: 3758412. DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.111101-QUAN-395. View

Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayan A . The weirdest people in the world?. Behav Brain Sci. 2010; 33(2-3):61-83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. View

Eysenck S, Eysenck H . Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychol Rep. 1978; 43(3 Pt 2):1247-55. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1978.43.3f.1247. View

Xu P, Cheng J . Individual differences in social distancing and mask-wearing in the pandemic of COVID-19: The role of need for cognition, self-control and risk attitude. Pers Individ Dif. 2021; 175:110706. PMC: 7847399. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110706. View

Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber E, Erev I . Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci. 2004; 15(8):534-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x. View

Drichoutis A, Nayga Jr R . On the stability of risk and time preferences amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Exp Econ. 2021; 25(3):759-794. PMC: 8360830. DOI: 10.1007/s10683-021-09727-6. View

He L, He C, Reynolds T, Bai Q, Huang Y, Li C . Why do people oppose mask wearing? A comprehensive analysis of U.S. tweets during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021; 28(7):1564-1573. PMC: 7989302. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab047. View

Weber E . Risk attitude and preference. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2015; 1(1):79-88. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.5. View

Li J, Yang A, Dou K, Wang L, Zhang M, Lin X . Chinese public's knowledge, perceived severity, and perceived controllability of COVID-19 and their associations with emotional and behavioural reactions, social participation, and precautionary behaviour: a national survey. BMC Public Health. 2020; 20(1):1589. PMC: 7576982. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09695-1. View

10.

Liang L, Ren H, Cao R, Hu Y, Qin Z, Li C . The Effect of COVID-19 on Youth Mental Health. Psychiatr Q. 2020; 91(3):841-852. PMC: 7173777. DOI: 10.1007/s11126-020-09744-3. View

11.

Martikainen J, Sakki I . How newspaper images position different groups of people in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic: A social representations approach. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2021; 31(4):465-494. PMC: 8014754. DOI: 10.1002/casp.2515. View

12.

Frey R, Richter D, Schupp J, Hertwig R, Mata R . Identifying robust correlates of risk preference: A systematic approach using specification curve analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020; 120(2):538-557. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000287. View

13.

LERNER J, Keltner D . Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 81(1):146-59. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.146. View

14.

Sharot T . The optimism bias. Curr Biol. 2011; 21(23):R941-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030. View

15.

Shimizu K, Tokuda Y, Shibuya K . Japan should aim to eliminate covid -19. BMJ. 2021; 372:n294. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n294. View

16.

Zhu H, Deng F . How to Influence Rural Tourism Intention by Risk Knowledge during COVID-19 Containment in China: Mediating Role of Risk Perception and Attitude. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(10). PMC: 7277590. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103514. View

17.

Bechara A . Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8(11):1458-63. DOI: 10.1038/nn1584. View

18.

Weber E, Shafir S, Blais A . Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(2):430-45. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430. View

19.

Sahm C . How Much Does Risk Tolerance Change?. Q J Finance. 2014; 2(4). PMC: 4276321. DOI: 10.1142/S2010139212500206. View

20.

Moore D, Healy P . The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol Rev. 2008; 115(2):502-17. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502. View