•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

XU Mingxing, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; School of Transportation, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China
ZHENG Rui, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
RAO Lilin, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
KUANG Yi, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
YANG Shuwen, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
DING Yang, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
LI Jianglong, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
LI Shu, CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Keywords

COVID-19; psychological typhoon eye effect (PTE); ripple effect; safety concerns; risk perception

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Psychological typhoon eye (PTE) effect describes the public's irrational panic and response to major emergencies. This phenomenon is reported and named by LI Shu and his colleagues after the Wenchuan earthquake. During the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, we conducted a worldwide survey to investigate the safety concerns and risk perception of the COVID-19 epidemic from participants staying in five areas of different levels of risk (high-risk, moderate and high-risk, moderate-risk, low-risk, and very lowrisk areas). This effect appears to hold for COVID-19. Specifically, participants staying abroad showed more safety concerns or fears of the COVID-19 epidemic than participants staying in China. The people at zero distance were at the center of the PTE and were the most calm. On the basis of the cumulative findings on the PTE, we propose four targeted solutions for individuals and organizations with the power of discourse to improve the quality of risk communication and management.

First page

273

Last Page

282

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science:Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999, 19(4):689-701.

Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799):280-285.

Li S, Rao L L, Ren X P, et al. Psychological typhoon eye in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. PLoS One, 2009, 4(3):e4964.

谢佳秋, 谢晓非, 甘怡群.汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应.北京大学学报:自然科学版, 2011, 47(5):944-952.

Li S, Rao L L, Bai X W, et al. Progression of the "psychological typhoon eye" and variations since the Wenchuan earthquake. PLoS One, 2010, 5(3):e9727.

李纾, 刘欢, 白新文, 等.汶川"5.12"地震中的"心理台风眼"效应.科技导报, 2009, 27(3):87-89.

Midden C J H, Daamen D D L, Verplanken B. De Beleving van Energierisico's. Petten: Energie Studie Centrum, 1983.

Tilt B. Perceptions of risk from industrial pollution in China:A comparison of occupational groups. Human Organization, 2006, 65(2):115-127.

Zheng R, Rao L L, Zheng X L, et al. The more involved in lead-zinc mining risk the less frightened:A psychological typhoon eye perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2015, 44:126-134.

Maderthaner R, Guttmann G, Swaton E, et al. Effect of distance upon risk perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63(3):380.

Bishara A J, Pleskac T J, Fridberg D J, et al. Similar processes despite divergent behavior in two commonly used measures of risky decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2009, 22(4):435-454.

Camilleri A R, Newell B R. When and why rare events are underweighted:A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2011:1-8.

Hau R, Pleskac T J, Kiefer J, et al. The description-experience gap in risky choice:The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2008, 21(5):493-518.

Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber E U, et al. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 2004, 15(8):534.

Hertwig R, Pleskac T J. Decisions from experience:Why small samples? Cognition, 2010, 115(2):225-237.

Download
Request a Copy

Click link below to download English version.

Proposals for Coping with Psychological Typhoon Eye Effect Detected in COVID-19 2010CG00002.pdf (2646 kB)

Share

COinS