Perceived Corona virus exposure as a function of interpersonal distance and time of a conversation

Svenson, Ola

doi:10.1007/s44155-022-00027-9

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present paper concerns a dose response problem, in which the dose is the exposure, and the response is the perceived risk. The relation describing perceived risk of infection as a function of distance was the same as the function relating exposure to distance in other studies 5 , 6 . Therefore, perceived risk of infection can be assumed to be proportional to judged exposure, which is also found for objective measures in medical research treating virus exposure and risk of infection 12 – 15 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The data were collected in May 2022. The number of participants was chosen with due regard to the results of two previous studies in the same project 5 , 6 and the study was not preregistered. Two participants were excluded because of failure on an attention test, and 23 participants judged infection risk as increasing with increasing distance for a majority of the scenarios in the no mask condition and were excluded in all conditions, leaving 175 participants for further analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though the present study is primarily exploratory, we predicted (1) that the change in perceived Corona virus infection risk following a change of distance to a virus source will be smaller than objective estimates 5 , 6 . Based on a mental coherence assumption, we predicted (2) that the preferred minimum safety distance to an infected person will correlate with judgments of infection risk as a function of interpersonal distance.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Because people’s behavior is governed by their perceptions, such studies are important for understanding behavior in a pandemic. The present authors are aware of only three studies focused on the problem of distance, exposure and perceived risk; two studies by Svenson et al 5 , 6 , and one study by Heffertz and Rabin 7 . These studies showed that when a person approaches an infected person, the increase in exposure is underestimated because the participants used an incorrect exposure-distance function.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

Svenson,

Isohanni,

Salo

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants judged the risk of an infection during a face to face conversation at different interpersonal distances from a SARS-CoV-2 infected person who wore a face mask or not, and in the same questionnaire answered questions about Corona related issues. Keeping a distance to an infected person serves as a protective measure against an infection. When an infected person moves closer, risk of infection increases. Participants were aware of this fact, but underestimated the rate at which the risk of infection increases when getting closer to an infected person, e.g., from 1.5 to 0.5 m (perceived risk increase = 3.33 times higher, objective = 9.00 times higher). This is alarming because it means that people can take risks of infection that they are not aware of or want to take, when they approach another possibly virus infected person. Correspondingly, when an infected person moves away the speed of risk decrease was underestimated, meaning that people are not aware of how much safer they will be if they move away from an infected person. The perceived risk reducing effects of a face mask were approximately correct. Judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances (with or without a mask) were unrelated to how often a person used a mask, avoided others or canceled meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Greater worry in general and in particular over COVID-19, correlated positively with more protective behavior during the pandemic, but not with judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances. Participants with higher scores on a cognitive numeracy test judged mask efficiency more correctly, and women were more worried and risk avoiding than men. The results have implications for understanding behavior in a pandemic, and are relevant for risk communications about the steep increase in risk when approaching a person who may be infected with an airborne virus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

Svenson,

Isohanni,

Salo

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ref. 2 replicates Ref. 1 and adds time of a conversation but does not trade time against distance as we do.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Estimating perceptions of the relative COVID risk of different social-distancing behaviors from respondents’ pairwise assessments

Heffetz

Rabin

2023

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people compare the effectiveness of different social-distancing behaviors in avoiding the spread of viral infection? During the COVID pandemic, we showed 676 online respondents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel 30 pairs of brief videos of acquaintances meeting. We asked respondents to indicate which video from each pair depicted greater risk of COVID infection. Their choices imply that on average, respondents considered talking 14 min longer to be as risky as standing 1 foot closer, being indoors as standing 3 feet closer, being exposed to coughs or sneezes as 3 to 4 ft closer, greeting with a hug as 7 ft closer, and with a handshake as 5 ft closer. Respondents considered properly masking as protecting the wearer and interlocutor equally, removing the mask entirely or only when talking as standing 4 to 5 ft closer but wearing it under the nose as only 1 to 2 ft closer. We provide weaker evidence on beliefs about the interaction effects of different behaviors. In a more limited, ex post analysis, we find little evidence of differences in beliefs across subpopulations.

show abstract

A note on judgments and behavior: Distancing and Corona virus exposure

Svenson,

Duce Gimeno,

Nilsson

et al. 2024

Judgm. decis. mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a questionnaire, participants judged the increase in SARS-CoV-2 virus exposure when moving closer to an infected person. Earlier studies have shown that the actual increase in virus exposure is underestimated and the present study replicated and extended these studies. The primary purpose was to investigate to what extent questionnaire judgments about hypothetical situations can predict judgments and actual behavior in real physical space. Participants responded to a questionnaire and the same participants also took part in a parallel study that was conducted in a room with a mannequin representing a virus infected person. The earlier reported bias in the perception of exposure as a function of distance to a virus source was replicated in the questionnaire and the physical laboratory study. A linear function connected median exposure judgments at the same distances from a virus source in the questionnaire and in the laboratory, R2 = 0.99. When asked to move to a distance that would give a prescribed exposure level, a linear function described the relationship between questionnaire distance judgments and moves to distances in the physical space, R2 = 0.95. We concluded that questionnaire data about perceived virus exposures are reliable indicators of real behavior. For health reasons, the significant underestimations of the steep increase of virus exposure during an approach to a virus source need to be stressed in communications to policy makers, the public, professionals working close to clients, nursing staff, and other care providers.

show abstract

Perceived Corona virus exposure as a function of interpersonal distance and time of a conversation

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

Estimating perceptions of the relative COVID risk of different social-distancing behaviors from respondents’ pairwise assessments

A note on judgments and behavior: Distancing and Corona virus exposure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About