ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Stability of Risk Preferences During COVID-19: Evidence From Four Measurements.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Perceived Scarcity on Mental Health, Time and Risk Preferences, and Decision-Making During and After COVID-19 Lockdown: Quasi-Natural Experimental Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Can major public health emergencies increase the participation of commercial insurance? Evidence from China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Time and risk preferences and the perceived effectiveness of incentives to comply with diabetic retinopathy screening among older adults with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Does the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown affect risk attitudes?-Evidence from rural Thailand.PloS one · 2023Article
- Positive and Negative Risk-Taking in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Citizen Science Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article studies the stability of risk-preference during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results differ between risk-preference measurements and also men and women. We use March 13, 2020, when President Trump declared a national state of emergency as a time anchor to define the pre-pandemic and on-pandemic periods. The pre-pandemic experiment was conducted on February 21, 2020. There are three on-pandemic rounds conducted 10 days, 15 days, and 20 days after the COVID-19 emergency declaration. We include four different risk-preference measures. Men are more sensitive to the pandemic and become more risk-averse based on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Women become more risk-averse in the Social and Experience Seeking domains based on the results from the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) and Sensation Seeking Scales (SSS). Both men's and women's risk-preference are stable during COVID-19 based on a Gamble Choice (GC) task. The results match our hypotheses which are based on the discussion about whether the psychological construct of risk-preference is general or domain-specific. The differential outcomes between incentivized behavioral and self-reported propensity measures of risk-preference in our experiment show the caveats for studies using a single measure to test risk-preference changes during COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.