Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31905206›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Risk perception and behavioral change during epidemics: Comparing models of individual and collective learning.

Shaheen A Abdulkareem, Ellen-Wien Augustijn, Tatiana Filatova, Katarzyna Musial, Yaseen T Mustafa

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The COVID 19 pandemic, daily mobility and household welfare: Evidence from Tajikistan.Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shaheen A AbdulkareemCenter of Studies of Technology and Sustainability Development (CSTM), Faculty of Behavioral, Management, and Social sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9837-0207
Ellen-Wien AugustijnDepartment of Geo-Information Processing (GIP), Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Tatiana FilatovaCenter of Studies of Technology and Sustainability Development (CSTM), Faculty of Behavioral, Management, and Social sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Katarzyna MusialAdvanced Analytics Institute, School of Software, Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia.
Yaseen T MustafaFaculty of Science, University of Zakho (UoZ), Kurdistan region, Iraq.ORCID 0000-0003-0634-3170

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern societies are exposed to a myriad of risks ranging from disease to natural hazards and technological disruptions. Exploring how the awareness of risk spreads and how it triggers a diffusion of coping strategies is prominent in the research agenda of various domains. It requires a deep understanding of how individuals perceive risks and communicate about the effectiveness of protective measures, highlighting learning and social interaction as the core mechanisms driving such processes. Methodological approaches that range from purely physics-based diffusion models to data-driven environmental methods rely on agent-based modeling to accommodate context-dependent learning and social interactions in a diffusion process. Mixing agent-based modeling with data-driven machine learning has become popularity. However, little attention has been paid to the role of intelligent learning in risk appraisal and protective decisions, whether used in an individual or a collective process. The differences between collective learning and individual learning have not been sufficiently explored in diffusion modeling in general and in agent-based models of socio-environmental systems in particular. To address this research gap, we explored the implications of intelligent learning on the gradient from individual to collective learning, using an agent-based model enhanced by machine learning. Our simulation experiments showed that individual intelligent judgement about risks and the selection of coping strategies by groups with majority votes were outperformed by leader-based groups and even individuals deciding alone. Social interactions appeared essential for both individual learning and group learning. The choice of how to represent social learning in an agent-based model could be driven by existing cultural and social norms prevalent in a modeled society.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalInterpersonal RelationsMachine LearningModels, TheoreticalSocial BehaviorCholeraComputer SimulationDecision MakingEpidemicsHumansRisk FactorsSocial Learning

Identifiers

PMID31905206
PMCPMC6944362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.