Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2003;48(13):1297–1303. doi: 10.1007/BF03184166

Rationality of 17 cities’ public perception of SARS and predictive model of psychological behavior

Kan Shi 1,2,, Jiafang Lu 1, Hongxia Fan 1, Jianming Jia 3, Zhaoli Song 4, Wendong Li 1, Jing Gao 1, Xuefeng Chen 1, Weipeng Hu 1
PMCID: PMC7089203  PMID: 32214707

Abstract

This study investigated the feature of Chinese peoples’ perception of SARS by surveying a stratified sample of 4231 people from 17 cities in China, and primarily proposed a risk perception centered predictive model of psychological behavior in crisis. The results indicated that, negative SARS-related information, especially information of personal interest, will arouse people’s risk perception of high level, and lead to irrational nervousness or scare; but positive SARS-related information, including recovery information and that with measures taken by government, can decrease the level of risk perception. In the middle of May, people felt the highest level of risk on the SARS pathogens; the following are the physical health condition and infectivity after recovering from SARS; they are factors that need special attention. SEM result analyses supported our hypotheses in that SARS-related information affect people’s coping behavior and mental health through their risk perception, the four indices of risk assessment, feeling of nervousness, coping behavior and mental health are effective presentimental indices for public psychological behavior in risky events.

Keywords: SARS, rationality, risk perception, risk communication, predictive model

References

  • 1.Simon Herbert A. Rationality in Psychology and Economics. Journal of Business. 1986;59(4):S209–224. doi: 10.1086/296363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kahneman D., Tversky A. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. The Simulation Heuristic; pp. 201–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Slovic Paul. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Atman C. J., Bostrom A., Fischhoff B., et al. Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes (part 1) Risk Analysis. 1994;14:779–788. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00289.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Webmaster Trauma. A socio-psychological model for analyzing risk communication processes. The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies. 2000;2:150–166. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vlek C., Stallen P. Rational and personal aspects of risk. Acta Psychologique. 1981;45:275–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Douglas M., Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Banks M. H., Clegg C. W., Jackson P. R., et al. The use of the general health questionaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1980;53:187–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hoyle Rick H., editor. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Xu L. Risk and decision. Science Decision (in Chinese) 1998;2:37–39. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Science Bulletin = Kexue Tongbao are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES