The Relationship between Risk Perception and Risk Definition and Risk-Addressing Behaviour during the Early COVID-19 Stages

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to show the effect of Risk Perception RP and Risk Definition RD on the Risk-Addressing Behaviour RB. To carry out this study secondary data was used from a semi-structured survey administered between February and June 2020, a period during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study identified six dimensions of risk perception and thus tested six structural models. Risk perception (ξ RP) is defined as an external latent variable in the study. It is also assumed that the risk perception variable may affect the risk definition variable (η RD). The application software SmartPLS was used to analyse data through exploratory factor analysis and partial least squares structural equation modelling on our research model. To achieve Convergent validity of the structural equation model of partial least squares, three criteria were met. In the study, Discriminant Validity was examined using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and Heterotrain-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) coefficients. Results reveal that there is no direct relationship between the RB and “religion and beliefs”, the “fear level, the experience”, the “peer influences level” and the “openness”. However, we found a positive relationship between the agreement on “knowledge” and on RB and statistically significant relationships between the agreement on the RD and the agreement on the “religion and beliefs”, the “fear level”, the “experience”, the “knowledge”, the “peer influences level” and the RB. Moreover, there is an indirect relationship when controlling for the agreement on the RD between the agreement on the RB and the agreement on the “fear level”, the “experience”, the “knowledge” and the “peer influences level”. However, there is no relationship between the agreement on the “openness” and the agreement on the RB and a statistically significant but moderate relationship between the agreement on the RD and the agreement on the RB. Although, there seems to be abundant research on RP, so far we have found only a few studies on the influencing factors of RP, as effected by RB and RD, especially in distressed times such as during this current pandemic period of COVID-19. This study adds to body of literature and sheds new light on the interaction between RP, RB and RD in a time of distress. It provides important and original information that may be useful for government agencies, businesses, individuals, and the media when setting policies, governance structures, regulations, procedures and determining how to communicate.

Examining water risk perception and evaluation in the corporate and financial sector: a mixed methods study in Ontario, Canada

“…Survey items aligned with variables and measures were drawn from extant risk perception literature further adapted for water risks and the context of Ontario (Slimak and Dietz 2006, Krewski et al 2006, 2008, Dupont et al 2014, Bouman et al 2018, Robinson 2018, Thistlethwaite et al 2018, Mumbi and Watanabe 2020, Grima et al 2021. Operationalizing our theoretical framework, water risk perception factors (independent variables) to be examined included Nature of Risk (different water issues, likelihood, drivers, extent of integration), Attitudes (confidence, scope, controllability, equity, impact awareness, benefits, previous exposure to water issues, overall concern, and urgency), Knowledge (assessment of experience, knowledge in different sectors, source of knowledge), Values and beliefs (biospheric, altruistic, egoistic, technological optimism), Trust (in institutions to manage water risks), and Sociocultural demographic characteristics (cultural importance of water, sector, discipline, professional role, gender, ethnicity, location).…”

“…We employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to statistically validate hypothesized constructs based on our theoretical framework and reduce underlying variables (Jung and Lee 2011, Bouman et al 2018, Grima et al 2021. In addition to construct validity, EFA alleviates multi-collinearity issues in statistical tests (Robinson 2018).…”

“…Due to the small sample size and the complexity of a few constructs, additional criteria of composite reliability (CR) (acceptable > 0.6) and Average Variance Explained (AVE) (acceptable > 0.4) were used to ensure reliability and convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981, Lam 2012, Bouman et al 2018. The names and definitions of constructs were assigned based on the literature and theory (Robinson 2018, Grima et al 2021. Recent literature on behavioral research suggests that the robustness of sum or mean item scores post-factor analysis is comparable to more refined weighted factor score estimates with the additional advantage of simplicity and consistency across samples (Boateng et al 2018, Robinson 2018, Widaman and Revelle 2022.…”

Determining the Travel Risk Perception and Travel Behavior of Serbian Residents During the Post-Pandemic Period

“…(Cui et al, 2016). In addition to the multidisciplinary nature of the research, an aggravating circumstance in the analysis of travel risk perception relates to the subjective character of risk assessment and its impact on tourist safety (Garg, 2013;Grima et al, 2021). Perceived risk is related to the way tourists perceive uncertainty and potentially negative outcomes, which are a consequence of traveling and consuming the tourist offer (Matiza, 2020) as a result, this risk affects the travel behavior and desire of tourists to revisit a specific destination (Floyd et al, 2004;Hasan et al, 2017).…”

Digital Banking in Northern India: The Risks on Customer Satisfaction

“…Consumers and businesses that were previously hesitant to switch to or rely on digital channels now enjoy the convenience and speed they provide, thereby increasing the likelihood that this change in habits will become permanent (Grima et al 2020). To do this, it is necessary to rethink all internal processes, focusing on the customers' satisfaction, and think about how they look and work in a digital environment (Girlando et al 2021;Pavia et al 2021;Grima et al 2021a).…”